Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 4

4 August 2020

Cup Foods

Cup Foods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The only thing this redirect shared with the one deleted with RFD a month and a half ago - an eternity in this content area - is its title. The target was different, the content at the target was radically different, and WP:G4 requires that the content be substantially identical. Further, speedy deletion had already been independently declined by two different admins (User:Tavix at WP:AN#Cup Foods; then myself on the redirect itself before seeing the AN section), both saying it needs a new discussion, so it's plainly not uncontroversial. —Cryptic 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn per my comment at WP:AN. Note that I had advocated for keeping the redirect in the prior RfD, so I would be too involved to decline the speedy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• That title's a plausible search term for instant soup, and also an easter egg link for something to do with George Floyd's killing. List at RfD so we can reach a consensus to disambiguate in an orderly way.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn Once a speedy is declined, particularly by an admin, an editor who favors deletion ought to proceed via another process, normally an XfD discussion. This was upheld here recently. Beyond that, the content was not similar, so this was not a valid G4 speedy, even had there never been a decline. Restore promptly, and let anyone who favors deletion do an ordinary RfD nomination. Dennis Brown should have known better. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• List at RfD - List at RfD so that a full discussion about the new redirect can take place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:G4 operates not based on the size of the diff, but on whether the recreation addresses the previous reasons for deletion. You can completely rewrite an article from scratch and it'll get G4'd if it doesn't bring any new sources to the table. However, for a redirect any new target which did not achieve consensus to reject (or simply wasn't discussed, in this case) at RfD is ineligible for G4. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse the consensus at the RfD was that this title shouldn't redirect to an article about the death of George Floyd which happens to mention the store in passing. It's been recreated as a redirect to an article about the death of George Floyd which happens to mention the store in passing. The same decision applies. Hut 8.5 07:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Can someone please share the two redirect targets? Target A was about George Floyd, if target B is about, say, Nissin then it's a clear overturn and if it's about a different Floyd/protest-related article it's a clear endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• The recreated version pointed to George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul#George Floyd memorial site. The redirect discussed at RfD pointed to Killing_of_George_Floyd#Arrest. Hut 8.5 11:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's a clear endorse from me, even though the redirect is to a different page. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• My thinking was exactly what Hut 8.5 said. Only 6 weeks had passed since it was deleted and the redirect clearly violated the spirit and the actual words in that RfD. The proper way to recreate that redirect would have been at review. Both articles cover the same event and are clearly linked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Did you notice and consider the previous decline of speedy deletion, consider going the RfD route instead in light of that? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • • It was a crystal clear case of G4 in my eyes, so there wasn't any reason to consider alternatives. I would take exception with your "particularly by an admin" comment, above. Admin aren't given special privileges or favors when it comes to content issues like tagging/untagging an article, and removing a tag doesn't require administrative tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Admins are given special responsibility to review, and act on, speedy deletion tags. This includes acting by de-tagging as well as by deleting. But if any experienced editor, admin or not, detags a page in good faith, then its deletion is no longer uncontroversial, and speedy deletion should probably not be followed. WP:CSD says (last sentence of 5th paragraph) If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. I think thst is fairly clear, and that is a policy page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Admins are also supposed to use common sense. The deletion discussion was a clear delete, and the reinstated redirect does not solve any of the problems specifically discussed by the majority voters in the deletion discussion, namely that this shouldn't redirect to anything having to do with the Floyd incident. Redirects shouldn't be ineligible for G4 just because they point to a new location or because the topic is controversial. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Blackman in European kitchen

Blackman in European kitchen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It might be necessary to write this article new, but I would do it only if it is clear, that this is not just promotion with fear of speed-deleting. PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Looks pretty promotional. No independent sourcing. Would need a total rewrite with information from WP:RS. Please see User:deepfriedokra/g11 for my standard G11 deletion message --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse G11 This was unsourced and in my view rather promotional, and the promotion was already present in early revisions. It also was not clear if it was about the poem or about the poet (Emmanuel Eni), while we have a different article about the poet now also at DRV. There is no bar to recreation, but if recreated, please start with independent, reliable sources, and make the article strictly aboi7ut the poem, not the poet (although of course the poet would need to be mentioned). If I were mentoring an editor wanting to create such an article, I would advise the use of draft space or a userspace draft, but that is a choice, not a requirement. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  DES makes good points. I would recommend WP:AfC just to have the time to develop the page with less likelihood of deletion. Barring further WP:g11 content of course. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• This reads like a machine translation. —Cryptic 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse reasonable call, there was plenty of promotional text and if it was all removed there wouldn't be much left. There were other problems with the article, e.g. the subject of the article is a poem, but the opening sentence says it's about a poet. We could restore it to draft space for improvement. Hut 8.5 17:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would have deleted as A7 in preference to G11, but I'm happy either way. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  If it was considered an article about a poem, rather than about a poet, A7 would be out of scope, Stifle. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)