Deleting admin comments: Page was nominated for WP:G12 (copyright violation). Newimpartial contested the deletion, as only about 75% of the content was a copyvio. I concurred, removed the offending text, and noticed that the remainder was overly promotional with little left to salvage (and zero references). Thus, I deleted it WP:G11. STALE has nothing to do with this, and as I have repeatedly stated on my talk page, simply contesting a speedy tag does not automatically make it invalid (though again, the G12 was successfully contested). Primefac (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You mean User talk:Isik Abla1, the talk page of the user who created it, I take it? I see no such discussion there. WP:STALE has exactly nothing to do with why the page was deleted, and I can confirm that it was a copyright violation, nearly in its entirety, since its first revision. (And, typically for copyvios, the content was so unsuitable for Wikipedia that a deletion as unambiguous advertising would also have been defensible.)Unless you have and present a very strong argument that this was in fact not a copyright violation, this review is likely to be closed in very short order. —Cryptic02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is where I wrote the objection. WP:STALE sets out a number of criteria for deletions from Draft space, which do not include WP:N or the likelihood of a Draft becoming a Wikipedia article. It seems to me that this was a good faith draft, and that in spite of the WP:COPYVIO the appropriate course was to delete that content, and allow someone to rewrite it. This is particularly the case since the Draft had only been recently rejected at AfC, and not for reasons of WP:COPYVIO. It is fine for Primefac to say that G12 was overturned, so then he used G11, but that isn't really how SD is supposed to work, is it? A bit of a shell game, if nobody can see the notice before deletion.
In any case, all I am really saying in this context is that its deletion (and that of the talk page) should be overturned so that in can go through the MfD process. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, color me unconvinced. This would still have been deleted if it went to WP:CP (not MFD, as demanded on Draft talk:); nearly half of even the post-revdel version is either directly infringing or deleteably-close paraphrasing; and it's a G11 regardless. —Cryptic02:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's fine to be unconvinced, but this was one of series of SD nominations that did not meet the criteria posted in the notice (as far as I could tell) and I just wanted procedure to be followed, which I don't believe it was. WP:COPYVIO reads:
"If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." This is not what was done. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Followed from Primefac's talk. If the content was G11 eligible it would have also been G12 eligible because that criteria clearly states that where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving it is able to be applied. Excessive copyvio often is present with G11 eligible drafts and new pages because the marketing people just recycle. Since I can't see the article, and I trust Primefac's judgement on most thing's implicitly, 75% match for copyvio plus advertising is a good speedy candidate. Cryptic's further analysis of more copyvio is an additional argument against restoration. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what's not from the cited site is from [1] and (according to Google; Facebook doesn't show me a thing with NoScript on, so I can't confirm) [2]. The only paragraph I can't source is the one starting "Today, Işık’s programs are broadcast in 160 countries on five continents in five languages", and that's the G11iest of them all. —Cryptic03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a real problem, then it must be dealt with. My issue was procedural, since the article in question was deleted without discussion, and against my Prima Faciae objection. I have no sympathy with actual spam generators. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying hard to believe that because you recently found a new wiki career protecting spam by trying to close MfDs with "procedural close", seeking to have spam undeleted, and now removing speedy tags from obvious spam cases. I'm thinking of going to ANi over your nonsense when I'm on a computer not mobile. Legacypac (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether this text was spammy enough to warrant the G11 deletion. For lack of consensus to overturn, the speedy deletion is maintained by default. The deleted text is in this thread, so an immediate (perhaps less spammy) recreation is possible. An undeletion and listing at MfD is therefore unnecessary. – Sandstein 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Prior to the SD, I looked at the userspace draft and did not see any evidence of WP:SPAM; I therefore removed the SD tag which the nominator, Legacypac, then re-added. Admin then SDed the Userspace page in spite of the discussion ongoing on the talk page. CSD G11 is unambigious advertising, and I don't see how this deletion could possibly have met that standard. Therefore I am calling for a review. Newimpartial (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseValid speedy.Justified deletion. We are a little more tolerant in draft space than user space, but this would have been a good speedy anywhere. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
after looking at it, I would say "justified deletion"--it is stretching G11 a little. But I should state very emphatically that I do not consider bringing it here disruptive. This is the proper place for questioning discussions on deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm done with the nominator. I told him I might take him to ANi if he kept up this nonsense protection of spam. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding since this is still going on: my further endorse rationale can be summed up by Lankiveil: restoring a sub-stub with no sourcing only to send it to MfD is an affront to commonsense and a waste of everyone's time. I'll echo others that say G11 is a stretch, but now that it's been applied how exactly is wasting another week of everyone's time at MfD in the interest of the encyclopedia? IAR is justified in not overturning here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is never an appropriate reason to speedy delete anything. By definition, speedy deletion is allowed only for pages that would be uncontroversially deleted every single time without exception. Every single one of those cases is listed in the WP:CSD criteria, so if it does not meet the letter and spirit of a criterion then its deletion cannot be uncontroversial. If an uninvolved editor disagrees that a page meets the speedy deletion criteria then it does not meet the criteria (and this page is full of people doing exactly that). WP:IAR is only for actions that clearly improve the encyclopaedia. Deleting pages that do not have consensus to be deleted is the exact opposite of improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that restoring one sentence that was used to hang spam links on only to send it to MfD to be deleted, which no one is suggesting it wouldn't be, is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. I'd agree with you on everything you say: I would not have tagged this page as G11, but now that it is deleted does restoring serve a purpose? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that IAR shouldn't be used in speedy deletion. But it's done all the time, every day, with much more substantial and much less hopeless pages. Try paging through CAT:CSD in the early morning US time, say around 6 or 8:00 UTC, and watchlisting all the improperly-tagged articles instead of declining them; somewhere between 80% and 100% of them end up redlinks whenever I try this. There are much, much better pages to be bringing to DRV if your goal is strict adherence to the criteria as written. —Cryptic20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have speedied this - remove the external links, and it's no worse than an A7 (and thus not deleteable in userspace) - but two short sentences completely abandoned for three and a half years is hardly worth getting worked up over. —Cryptic06:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I would normally provide the tempundelete, in this case I'm going to decline. The article was clearly of no value to the encyclopedia. It consisted of three external links to commercial sites where the subject's music could be purchased, and just enough text to hang the ref tags on. -- RoySmith(talk)12:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text was "Shy Kidx is a EDM project out of Italy.[1] They have released 3 tracks for sale on iTunes[2] through Epitaph Records.[3]", last edited (except for addition and removal of a db-g11 tag) in 8 November 2013. RoySmith's characterization of those three "references" is accurate. —Cryptic15:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. But, more than that, I strongly caution Newimpartial to reconsider their argumentative and combative style. While we welcome any and all newcomers who want to help the project, there is a learning curve. You have waded into a highly technical and nuanced area of policy and are picking battles with some of our most experienced editors and administrators. That's not productive. You were given some excellent advice when it was suggested you join the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy project. That's a good way to get involved in some of the behind-the-scenes work of building the encyclopedia and learning about our policies. I encourage you to follow that advice. I also encourage you to read WP:NOTHERE. If you continue to pursue the non-productive arguments you have been embroiled in, myself or some other admin will surely invoke WP:BLOCKP to prevent further disruption of our work. -- RoySmith(talk)12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator presents a superficial case for WP:TROUTing the re-tagger & deleting admin (a removed CSD tag calls for a discussion), but the correct way forward may be to warn User:Newimpartial of WP:Disruption and possible WP:BLOCKs. I haven't read the unlinked ANI threads, but that appears to be the proper venue, given what I see at User_talk:Newimpartial#Userspace_deletions and User_talk:Newimpartial#Removal_of_CSD_template. I see an allegation by Newimpartial of "Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations" as justification for CSD detagging. This is a serious allegation. I ask User:Legacypac to enable User:Legacypac/CSD log, to turn it on using the preferences panel, for transparency. A qucik random check of contributions reveals a lot of tagging and some bad tagging [3][4][5][6] (NB this search is biased as it can only find CSD taggings on undeleted pages). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The one-line article was created three and a half years ago and left to rot. It is a complete nonsense to retain it. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn regardless of how many experienced editors the OP may be going against here, this was not unambiguously promotional and should not have been deleted under G11. Yes, the page doesn't have any particular merit, but nevertheless it doesn't qualify for G11. Hut 8.520:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's true G11 requires that the page would need a fundamental rewrite in order to make it not promotional. Deleting a few links is not a fundamental rewrite. Hut 8.506:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once the promotional material is removed, you have an unsourced substub. Overturning to retain such low quality "content" would not be in the interests of the project, and would represent an affront to common sense. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn. This was not unambiguous promotion, and so not speedy deletable under G11. It was not in article space so none of the A criteria could apply. It was not nonsense, a test page, vandalism, a hoax, the recreation of previously deleted material, the creation of a blocked or banned user, a technical deletion, at the request of the author, deleted by the WMF Office, an attack page or copyright infringement. Therefore it does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. The correct course of action for something like this is MfD. I would almost certainly recommend deletion at MfD, but this does not justify a bad speedy deletion because speedy deletions that do not meet the criteria are one of the most harmful things that an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as not meeting any speedy deletion criteria per the above. More important than a one-line article here is the cavalier attitude of DRV participants who should know better. It doesn't matter if it was trash: Nominate it at MfD and let the process run. Speedy deletion for things not covered by speedy deletion criteria is among the worst things an admin can do with the 'delete' button. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shy Kidx is a EDM project out of Italy.[1] They have released 3 tracks for sale on iTunes[2] through Epitaph Records.[3]
RoySmith described the references as: "It consisted of three external links to commercial sites where the subject's music could be purchased, and just enough text to hang the ref tags on."
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
The page's text clearly is not "exclusively promotional". It clearly does not have to be "fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION". The commercial external links can be easily removed.
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media.
Since WP:G11 is not met, and no other speedy deletion criterion has been mentioned as being applicable here, the speedy deletion must be overturned.
Overturn and send to MfD. What Cunard says. G11 clearly didn't apply here and without any valid speedy deletion reasons, the deletion has to be overturned. Trying to justify this deletion with "not worth to retain it" or "would not be in the interests of the project" misses the point of DRV, i.e. to determine whether the deletion was within policy, not whether the page might have been deleted anyway at another venue. The page's "worthiness" can be discussed at the appropriate venue but DRV is not it. Regards SoWhy10:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's footnote: just so that everyone is on the same page: I do not support the retention of this particular draft; I nominated it originally in large part because as non-admin I couldn't see it, and was trying to assess a wave of draftspace MfDs, several of which seemed to stretch criteria.
Today my attention was drawn to this,
[7] the text of which seems to encourage CSD-tagging and AfC submission against prevailing policies, in order to "resolve" stale draft tags. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Cryptic; I waw confusing it with another case that I requested thst the admin undelete but which I didn't take to this forum. I should have re-read my own request.
This one I untagged without checking the referencing, and then it was gone. Honestly, I thought at the time that it should have been discussed, but I also wanted to see the content because I couldn't remember what it had been and wanted to learn from the case (which I sure have). Sorry for confusing the matter with my earlier post. I do think the Category description reveals the process by which these overly enthusiastic CSD tags, mainspace transfers and AfC submissions are being generated. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial it is puzzling you are seeking to undelete something you don't want to retain. Many experiemced editors have counciled you to stop fighting deletion process and policy. You said you would, but here you are again, trying to say the long standing guide conflicts with policy. Roughly half your total edits concern telling everyone else the no one else understands MfD and CSD process and policy in favor of SPAM. Seems you WP:NOTHERELegacypac (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was seeking to undelete something I no longer want to remain. Does that make more sense? And the "long standing guide" quite clearly conflicts with the results of last year's consultations and the resulting WP:STALE, as I believe you know.
And the majority of my edits are both unreverted and in articlespace, thanks. Many of the rest are talk page participation, etc. I don't tell anyone that "they don't understand" anything, and I have been even more careful with issues of tone, recently. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, and restore draft, with the option to list at MfD. I don't see anything at WP:STALE or at Category:Stale userspace drafts that suggests, much less authorizes, using speedy deletion of legit drafts merely because they are stale. If there were any such suggestion, I would remove it as clearly against policy. DES(talk)22:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The petitioner cites no record of discussion with the deleting admin, so there is no dispute to consider; and while there are multiple issues that give pause, this is not a WP:IAR situation to discover a problem not already reviewed by the closing admin. The remedy at this point is a new article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but after review I want to stay focused on the big picture and the core issues here. Out-of-process Deletion Reviews are not the way for identifying out-of-process deletions. Unscintillating (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this is an out-of-process review; I have looked again at the deletion appeal instructions, and don't see any requirement to cite the discussion with the deleting admin, which consisted of my question here [8] and their answer here [9] before I asked for review. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This review is in no way out of process. The instructions mention as one of the proper uses of DRV: if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed. The instructions also say not to open a DRV: when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, but such discussion did occur and was linked above. There is no requirement that this be linked in the nomination statement, and it was mentioned early in the discussion, if I am not mistaken. That multiple experienced editors have opined that an OVERTURN is justified pretty well demonstrates that this is a proper DRV, even if their opinion does not prevail. A deletion not within the precise guidelines of a CSD, nor following any deletion discussion, is inherently out-of-process, and cannot be "justified". Such deletions should normaly be brought to DRV for review. Had I learned of this from the nominator, say via a Teahouse post, i would have opened a DRV myself. DES(talk)05:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This review is in no way out of process"? This is hyperbole, and does not leave room for a reply that advances the conversation. "Multiple experienced editors" is a fallacy because their experience may or may not be relevant.
If it is true that the role of participants is to research and locate a discussion with the deleting admin, why did DGG not make the report as the first respondent? You yourself state, "...it was mentioned early in the discussion, if I am not mistaken." This is a rather short discussion that you can't find the mention.
Why is the discussion on the talk page of the deleted article only being reviewed by admins?
I think you are dismissing the big picture, which is that if you are willing to give a blind eye to process irregularities at DRV, you weaken your objections to process irregularities of CSD. Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who initiated this deletion review, Unscintillating, I do not understand what you are saying. Both the article and the talk page of the article on which I originally commented were deleted. As a non-admin, I could then no longer see them. This is therefore the context of the review as a whole. I can't see anything out of the formal process whatever. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, when I wrote above that This review is in no way out of process I meant exactly what i said. Neithre I nor anyone is willing to give a blind eye to process irregularities at DRV because there have been no process irregularities at DRV. The DRV process does not require a link to or a mention of discussion with the deleting admin, so failing to provide it is not in any way a process irregularity. The procedure merely requires that such a discussion have occurred. If anyone doubts or challenges that, a link or links can be provided (by the nominator or anyone who cares to), and one was provided as soon as the issue was raised in this thread. Prior to such an issue being raised, there is no particular reason for anyone to provide such a link, so it is not true that the role of participants is to research and locate a discussion with the deleting admin because that is no one's role in particular when no issue has been raised about such discussions. Three is no big picture here except the willingness of some to overlook a blatant misuse of the deletion tool. Deleting a page, however horrid it might be, that does not fit any of the criteria and then failing to correct this error when asked to do so, is a breach of the deletion policy and of WP:ADMINACCT. If we had admin recall, this would surely be grounds to use it. Note that even if there had been a process irregularity here (which there hasn't), it would not involve misuse of admin tools, and so would be far less serious. DES(talk)08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as to "experienced editors let us look a bit. DGG wrote: I should state very emphatically that I do not consider bringing it here disruptive.. DGG is an editor with lots of experience with deletions, speedy deletions, and deletion review. Hut 8.5, Thryduulf, Jclemens, Cunard, SoWhy, and myself all called for the deletion to be OVERTURNed. All of those are editors with significant experience of deletions and deletion review, if I am not mistaken. AS for myself, I patrol Category:CSD regularly (as my deletion log and contributions log will show), I have participated in quite a few DRV discussions over the years, and I was one of the group of editors who created the current DRV process out of the old VfU process. I really think all that should be enough to absolve the nominator of having made an out of process much less a disruptive nomination here. DES(talk)08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, also, please restore draft. The artist is notable as per WP:MUSICBIO and included in other versions of Wikipedia, such as the Portuguese version. Wikipedia is a global community, not reserved for US artists only. Pbigio (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Per Pbigio's argument that the draft might meet MUSICBIO, which means that there is a reason for the MfD beyond just process, which I did not see raised until now. As for my comments about disruption that others have mentioned: I've struck them because I do believe this nomination was in good faith, but at the time was a part of a set of behaviors that got the nominator warned against participation in the deletion process without more experience when it was brought up at ANI using this as one of the examples, and it was in that context that my original comment was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn without prejudice to an MfD if someone wants to. I don't feel this is overly promotional once the links are removed, I also think there is a credible a claim of significance. I don't think this has much of a chance as an article, but I don't really grok our music guidelines, so I could be wrong. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the entire two sentences that were on the page have been posted in the thread, an overturn is not really helpful to anyone wanting to write an actual article on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Ignoring the article wizard boilerplate, you have to remove ~60% of the wikitext to get rid of the promotional material. That counts as a "fundamental rewrite" in my book. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
