Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 5

5 July 2009

Paola Di Maio – Keep deleted. However, the copies were substantially different, so CSD G4 does not apply. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paola Di Maio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Biography in relation to published work, projects and events systematically deleted (vandalized) by wikipedia editor since 1995. Suspected hate campaing, /ad since the biography and links to support the notoriety principles have been edited/added by various users and systematicaly deleted by the editors who obviously did not verify the supporting links, even when 'hold on' was placed on the page. Claim to notoriety met. Similar articles not deleted, nor questioned nor discussed, despite lesser links (see Nick Denton}, Patrick Barkham and many many living others whose profile is never deleted). All backlinks to related sources in other wikipedia pages also systematically wiped. Please restore and do not allow editors to delete this page, or please delete all the other pages that carry biographies of living people who are journalists/writers/researchers. Before I reply to this, please could an uninvolved admin confirm that the various G4 deletions here really were substantially identical to (i.e., near-carbon copies of) the original content from 2006?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC) They were not. The recent recreated versions were all similar to each other, consisting of one sentence about Ms. Di Maio, several requests not to redelete, and assorted references. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I should think we'll need some trouts, then. Procedural overturn as a bad G4, and list at AfD so the community can judge their merits per the correct procedure. Addendum: Before anyone challenges me on this, I should probably add that the references constitute a claim of notability so they invalidate the A7.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I agree that the recent recreations weren't substantially identical - in fact they were substantially worse than the version that was deleted at AfD. They were composed pretty much of a little paragraph about how Wikipedia keeps deleting the article, one sentence about the subject, two links to blogs with vague mentions, and a copy-paste of some information from one of the blogs. Two of the three recent deletions have been valid A7 speedies, and the third one pretty much could have been. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) To save further theoretical argument, I've made a temporary copy of the most recent deleted version (all three recent ones were essentially the same) - User:Mazca/Paola Di Maio. This was not a viable article in any way in the state it was deleted in. ~ mazca talk 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I suggest you work on a draft of the article in userspace and bring it here - none of the recent recreations have been in any way convincing of notability, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Creating an article with virtually no content beyond an angry statement about how it keeps getting deleted is not likely to solve the problem. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted; userfy for a draft if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Userify I think the intention of the latest group of articles was to add what was missing in the original: references. . there might or might not be a viable article combining the original version and the reverences. Sending the latest version to AfD would not help get an article, since it would almost certainly be deleted. Trying to write a new one might possibly do it, and to give a chance,it should be worked on in user space first. This will meet the intent of the request, which was to try to have an article if possible. DGG (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted unanimous AFD and three re-creations later, 'nuff said. No objection to userfication, but it comes here before being recreated a 4th time, as we aren't buying a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Comment—I'm really concerned that this could result in us endorsing a bad speedy. I think that if this is closed as "keep deleted", the closer should use those words, and specifically not use the word "endorse". In a perfect world, every single bad speedy that comes here would be overturned and sent straight to AfD, because I think it's an overriding consideration that CSD deletions need to be absolutely valid and unambiguous. I'd also invite the closer of this DRV to comment on the appropriateness of the speedy, please.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion: That was the clear consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bill Verna – No consensus, discretionary default to relist. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Verna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Substantial improvement was made during the course of the discussion and was ongoing at the time the discussion was closed. A courtesy notification, while not required, should have been made to the article creator (User:Faridzenger) and the relevant WikiProject (WP:PW). I question the motivation of three of the "delete" voters, as they had expressed displeasure at me for disagreeing with them in a previous deletion discussion and then all showed up to vote "delete" with no interest in weighing the merits of the additions to the article. While the discussion was ongoing, two of the "delete" voters removed sourced information that helped establish the subject's notability for reasons that, at ANI, were said by two administrators to be against Wikipedia policy. I was unable to restore this information without dancing around 3RR, but the article was deleted several hours later (while the ANI was still open). Due to the ongoing improvements up to the time of deletion and procedural irregularities during the discussion, I am asking that the article be restored or, at the very least, that a second, untainted AfD be opened. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I'm somewhat inclined to agree with a relist on the numbers, but I find your other remarks very concerning and I wonder if we're looking at a conduct dispute rather than a content one. Please could you provide diffs to illustrate what you say?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) To illustrate which points, specifically? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I'd like to see the removal of sourced content and the disapproval at ANI, please. My concern is that DRV can help with a content dispute but if there are conduct issues, other places may be appropriate venues as well.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. Because the article has been deleted, I do not have access to the diffs for removal of sourced content. The removal is mentioned directly, however, at ANI here by an uninvolved third party as "de facto vandalism". This was supported by two administrators: [1] and [2]. The second "delete" voter removed the content in response to the first one recruiting him to help get around 3RR here. My concern is not to seek action against the editor (in fact, the first editor to remove the content has since left Wikipedia because the ANI at which he reported me did not go in his favor [3]). I would much rather see the article restored than have punitive action taken against anyone, but I believe that these diffs at least help to indicate procedual irregularity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Yup, those diffs show an enormous amount of totally unnecessary drama, and I think they put your case that the AfD was tainted by disruptive editors beyond all reasonable doubt. Relist as a defective debate, and thank you to GaryColemanFan.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted; I'm satisfied with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Relist per S Marshall. If the comments made at the AfD were all that was happening, I'd call it a reasonable close, though verging towards no consensus. Given the fairly convincing evidence that there was some rather unsavoury behaviour going on at the same time, though, I think this needs to be restored and reviewed again at AfD to come to an untainted consensus on it. ~ mazca talk 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion the claim that new stuff was added doesn't wash, the later deletes had benefit of such stuff and specifically rebutted the asserted importance of them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Please note that the final "delete" came after the content was removed. It is also important to remember that the removal of content potentially had a larger impact. Editors who may have been leaning toward keeping it if they saw the extra information may have been less willing to comment after the content was removed (ie. more on the fence). While I admit this is speculative, it is certainly possible. Relisting the AfD would help answer such questions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Oakbrook Mall – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oakbrook Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Decision was to delete and recreate as a redirect. I feel the page should simply have been redirected (edit history retained). While it was unclear if the subject the page now redirects to is the same as the one the creator had in mind, the rationale for the deletion was that it was a hoax. But given the creator's history, it seems more like a good-faith creation in which a poor job was done at specifying the correct details. More time is needed to check this out. Sebwite (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Closing admin: This was a very unambiguous close, with the DRV filer being the only person not in favour of deleting this article. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) 's responses to your two comments at the AfD were particularly useful - there's simply no evidence that this mall exists, whatsoever, resulting in a gratuitous failure of WP:V. If the article was created in good faith, the details are so unsalvageably incorrect as to not be any use. While I salute your desire to rescue articles, I really think that time could be better spent than rescuing an article on a mall that all available evidence suggests does not exist. ~ mazca talk 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: There is no problem being the only one with a certain view (see WP:OUTCAST). I am one who strongly feels deletion should be a last resort. Sebwite (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Absolutely, there's no problem with being the only one with a certain view - all good-faith viewpoints really are valuable in an AfD. However, they have to be closed in line with consensus, and your viewpoint unfortunately did not coincide with that. ~ mazca talk 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse. Yeah, that was totally unambiguous. Consider speedy close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure Couldn't have been closed otherwise. I am sure, though, that any admin should be glad to provide the text to the nominator should he/she wish to continue an inquiry toward the determination of whether there exists the mall (or some approximation thereof) and whether in any case the mall would be an appropriate encyclopedic topic (although Thryduulf's thorough analysis seems to foreclose the possibility that anything might be rescued). Joe (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse'. Given the state of the article and others created by the same user, this is almost certainly a hoax. For example, there is no Oak township in Oak county" in the United States. In any event, the complete failure of WP:V means that we can't use this material whatever the subjective motivation of the author. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse. Absolutely the correct decision. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse seems clear from the AfD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) Endorse The consensus at AfD seems rather clear. Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tansuit – Moot. It has been relisted on AfD by XSG. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tansuit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Decision was to merge and redirect to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters, however new information came to light during the merging process. It turns out that an entry on this page for "Tansit" or "Tansut" already exists, and that "Tansuit" is an improbable misspelling of this character's name. Had I known this during the time of the AfD, I would have recommended Delete because I think it's improper for Wikipedia to maintain Tansuit as a redirect as it is an improbable misspelling. —  X  S  G  05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse close. I don't see in what way this is an implausible misspelling - evidently whoever created the article made that mistake. I would simply redirect this as the AfD mandated, merging any further useful information that isn't already included under "Tansit", and leave it at that - the redirect isn't doing any harm. You can always take it to WP:RfD later if you really think it's implausible - I think the AfD close remains correct here even given the changed circumstances. ~ mazca talk 09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I should also add that as the AfD nominator you are already assumed to be recommending "delete" - if you wanted a merge in the first place, articles for deletion was not the place to bring it. ~ mazca talk 09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I'd say "Tansuit" is quite a plausible mis-spelling. (Look at the arrangement of keys on your keyboard). I endorse this close as an accurate reading of the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse nothing misread about this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.