Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13

Somewhat unusually, this is a request for a deletion review of a deletion review. The article in question is Slovio, which was very recently at DRV here. I have tried to discuss the matter with the DRV closer, JzG, and I invite you to review the relevant section of his talk page here. You will see from the talk page discussion that JzG closed the deletion review on the grounds that the nominator had a conflict of interest, and in JzG's words, "I am not big on giving spammers what they want." This is understandable and I don't dispute that part of it at all. However, my position is that the DRV did unearth sources and it ought to be possible to create a fresh article based on the sources we found during the DRV. I am willing to do this, and as a starting point, I would use a translation of de.wiki's article on the subject, which you can review here.

It is arguable that this DRV is unnecessary because I can create a fresh article that overcomes the reason for deletion, but since the article has been deleted several times and a very recent DRV has confirmed the deletion, and I do not want to be accused of an end-run around process, I thought it would be wiser to gain the community's view first. —S Marshall T/C 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, speedy close, trout-slap for excess process-wankery - So not only do we have the tried-and-true "DRV is not XfD Round 2" cautions for DRV abuse, now we have to start using "DRV is not DRV Round 3" ? This sort of thing is making a mockery of the entire deletion/creation process. Seriously, go slap the big red button on my user page and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been done before. A bad close is worth reviewing even if at DrV. That said, I think Guy got the close right. However, his comments on his talk page are darn troubling. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your sourced, neutral, completely different from the deleted version, userspace draft? I remain unconvinced that anyone but the inventor is persuaded of the importance of his constructed language, and he has been most assiduous in promoting it, not least on Wikipedia. We will need something weighty to overcome the reflex FOAD response which his previous request quite rightly provoked. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be necessary to provide a sourced userspace draft when I can provide a sourced draft from a foreign-language Wikipedia, as I have done. An automatic translation tool will turn it into ~~English~~ annoying semi-literate Yoda-speak for you if you don't read German (and here is a direct link). However, if there is a consensus here that I should translate it properly into userspace first, with inline citations, then I will.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I favor giving good faith contributors with a history of writing articles a lot of leeway on things like this. I suggest this DrV be closed as nothing prohibits the creation of a good a valid article by someone with a COI. I have to say Guy closed the DrV in a reasonable way so endorse. But I also can't imagine why we wouldn't allow the recreation of the article if quality sources exist, so allow recreation. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3, but unprotect to allow recreation by a good-faith user. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]