Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 30
This was kept at MfD. Two years later an admin deleted it, asserting based on their own original research that it was not in fact a hoax. This is procedurally inappropriate as admins do not have the authority to unilaterally overrule deletion discussions and the page should be restored. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: MFD, AN discussion leading to the deletion Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. And than AN discussion was also a topic ban violation (admittedly of a topic ban I've never been convinced was justified) * Pppery * it has begun... 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn out-of-process deletion which is the most similar to a G6 but which circumvents the last deletion discussion which pertains to the page. The edit history of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia in 2022 shows that there was significant disagreement about this and editors were removing and readding the entry, finally removed in this edit (see the earlier one for an actual rationale: diff). Whether this is a certifiable hoax or not can be decided in a new MfD. As an archived hoax page, it is a traditional and legitimate projectspace item, and needs to be discussed accordingly. If editors in the MfD can not agree that it is a hoax, and some substantively argue in good faith that is not a hoax, and it looks like 'no consensus' could be the outcome, the page should be deleted by default instead of kept. If editors roughly agree that it is a hoax after all, MfD should result in keeping.—Alalch E. 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- In other words, when such pages are discussed in MfD, the burden of deleting is on the nominator who must shake up the certainty of the page being a hoax. If multiple editors participating in that process (not commenting or edit warring somewhere else) no longer think that it's hoax, there should not have to be a consensus that the page is not a hoax, but a lack of consensus that it is a hoax should cause the page to no longer be seen as a suitable hoax example that we want to use as a point-of-reference-for-a-hoax. But the arguments need to be made in the appropriate forum where they can be appropriately seen and countered. —Alalch E. 14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Pppery for notifying me of this discussion -- I'm the admin who deleted the page. It was deleted following a request on the Administrator's Noticeboard to delete the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real page because it was no longer listed on LOHOW. I reviewed a discussion on the LOHOW talk page that showed the individual's actual name and other data as written in the article was not a hoax. (The person's real name, dates and places of both birth and death are available for anyone to see on the SSA index and database.) In fact, the unsourced original Ruda Real page could have been considered a WP:BLP violation from the start and speedy deleted as a WP:G10 attack page when it was created or subsequently thereafter. Additionally, it should have remained deleted following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruda Real per Wikipedia policy on biographies. We must always exercise care when dealing with non-notable bios. Note that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" on biographies of non-notable persons -- this includes their living family members. Note also "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Wikipedia's policy about being very cautious when creating possibly disparaging pages about real persons outweighs any desire to keep articles for curiosity sake. I concede that it was an error on my part not to have explained my reasoning on the LOHOW talk page. I'm sorry about that. But "unsourced contentious material... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The article should remain deleted. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- It can stay blanked while it is discussed in a new MfD. —Alalch E. 00:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. I wouldn't really have a problem with this under normal circumstances, but the fact that the page was kept at MfD after the supposed evidence of non-hoaxiness emerged in February 2022 means this needs to go back to MfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)