- Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
My article was closed as a repost of a deleted article, but it wasn't a repost of the deleted article. The article I wrote met the criteria of Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages since it both was an "improvement of previous writing" and, most importantly, the "notability status has changed". The article asserted notability in the subject that had occurred after the deletion review, in that case 8 had been released and received coverage after the previously deleted article was created, and the subject had been significantly covered in reliable sources, so it now meets the standards of WP:Notability_(software) (as is shown by the reliable sources such as well known and respected magazines and notable gaming websites). Thus, it shouldn't have been hastily deleted under G4 guidelines, as those don't apply since the article wasn't a just a re-creation of the original, but a significant improvement that establishes the change in the notability of the subject. JenniBees (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per lack of clarity regarding specifically how the subject is any more notable now than at the last DRV in December of last year. Could a freeware game originally released in 2004 really have made some giant leap in notability within the last few months? Seems unlikely to me, but weird stuff does happen. Endorse for now, though I'd consider changing my opinion if the nom clearly specifies how this is any more notable now than it was less than a year ago, and provides undeniably reliable sources to back that claim up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to need a temp. undelete of both versions to have a clue if G4 was appropriate or not. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IAR Endorse- Whether it qualifies for G4 is dubious because the two versions are substantially different. However, I do not believe the underlying reasons for deleting the first time have been resolved. If it were undeleted and sent to AfD, it would most likely be deleted again. Reyk YO! 09:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. There's no point merely reworking the text without also addressing the reason it was deleted as well, which doesn't seem to be possible in this case as it's no more notable now than last December. No point getting on a rewrite>DRV>AFD>deletion>rewrite>repeat treadmill that's just going to waste volunteers' time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As Reyk said, deleting it under G4 is dubious since the pages were significantly different. But you're wrong that the problems with the original article weren't addressed. If an AfD for the articlle was started with the article as it stood before it was deleted, it would almost certainly make it through the process. If you look at WP:WikiProject_Video_games/sources, you'll see that the sources listed at the article are listed there as notable and verifiable sources (Adventure Gamers, Just Adventure, PC Zone, 1UP.com, PC Gamer (UK), Rock, Paper, Shotgun, IndieGames.com). That makes it meet the requirements of WP:Notability_(software) as "the software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." Since it didn't deserve to be deleted per G4 rules, then surely it should be restored, since those sources clearly meets the notability requirements. JenniBees (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're majorly twisting my words beyond all reasonable bounds by trying to claim I said the G4 was wrong--indeed, I said the exact opposite, I explicitly endorsed the deletion and warned against pointlessly undeleting it as a waste of time. If you're going to participate in Wikipedia at all, DO NOT twist others' words or misattribute statements to them. That's completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I didn't mean to twist your words, when you said "Agreed" I thought you agreed with his entire statement, including the first part "Whether it qualifies for G4 is dubious because the two versions are substantially different." No disrespect intended. On the subject of my undelete request, note that the game wasn't just released in 2004. It's an episodic game that was released in eight parts over the course of eight years. Each part received coverage from WP:WikiProject_Video_games/sources notable sources (as I listed above), and it has received coverage this year. Thus, it has increased in notability since it's DRV last December. JenniBees (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy and list at AfD as desired There are new sources (some of which at least look reliable) and a new article, so not a G4. Further I'd say it has a reasonable claim to meeting the GNG. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Not notable, has been deleted thru an AFD. This guy has a cult fanbase that wants to ensure that he is well covered in Wikipedia for some reason. Andrevan@ 03:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 is about articles that are substantially identical. It sometimes falls to DRV to decide what "substantially identical" means, and we tend to decide that unless the sources have changed or a substantial period of time has elapsed since the deletion, then G4 does still apply. But once substantial new sources are introduced, G4 is out of bounds. No matter how much some editors might wish G4 was a notability criterion, it just isn't. The nominator is correct.
But that doesn't make Reyk wrong, the whole bloody thing's promotional. It's well-disguised promotion but promotion is absolutely what it is. Overturn G4 to G11 and re-delete.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. " I think the notabilty is in question, but there is a reasonable claim here. I don't see how this could be viewed as being exclusively promotional. I can easily edit it down to remove the promotional aspects (and will do so if we send it to AfD). Hobit (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it can be seen as promotional. Every statement is factual, remains neutral, and it doesn't contain any weasel words. If you're referring to the reception section, it only mentions it being selected as one of the best freeware games to help illustrate the fact that it meets the rules of Wikipedia:Notability (software) in that "the software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." JenniBees (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it's true that the content uses an encyclopaedic tone and is not, at first glance, sales-oriented, "promotion" doesn't mean the same as "advertising". It seems to me that any content that raises the profile of something Wikipedia wouldn't normally cover might legitimately be called "promotional". I'm not saying this is deliberate promotion, or alleging any kind of COI. What I'm saying is that it has a promotional effect. I see the repeated re-creation on the basis of remarkably thin sources as red flags for something Wikipedia wouldn't normally cover.—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't disagree with that, but I do think that's stretching the definition of G11 to the point it could encompass nearly anything that's been deleted multiple times in the past. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further adding to the evidence that the subject has increased in notability, I have found additional articles written about it that weren't included in the deleted article, from WP:WikiProject_Video_games/sources notable sources (note that the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article mentioned in the deleted article already is after last December's DRV, so it already establishes new notability). The first article was written just this year, IndieGames.com (http://indiegames.com/2013/03/the_2012_ags_awards.html), so it couldn't be included in last December's DRV. Additionally, there is an article on Ben Jordan from GameSetWatch (a notable reference that wasn't included in the article previously) (http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/03/adventurers_get_ags_awards_int.php), bringing the amount of WikiProject approved notable sources up to seven (I've mentioned the other sources up above). JenniBees (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist I have no personal opinion on notability, but the place to discuss it is AfD. We have decided that the G4 was not justified, the previous deletion was by the community at AfD, and that's the place to discuss it. I do not se how it is conceivably a G11. It describes the show. G11 is not based upon promotional intent, but upon entirely promotional content. User:S Marshall is completely correct when he says that almost any article in WP about a creative work or a product or a person or an organization or a place is in some sense promotional to some extent, because describing something raises the level of attention to it. (the description might raise our interest to the point of deciding that we don't have the least personal interest in seeing it or buying it or contributing to it , but that's a question not within the scope of our encyclopedia) . But the conclusion from this is not that we must avoid covering anything that we don't individually or collectively think worthwhile--that's using WP to make artistic judgments,which is as wrong as using it to make political judgments. Neither of them are within the scope of what an encyclopedia is for. WP is not a media guide or a media review. source, It is User:hobit who draws the right conclusion from this argument: we cannot judge intent from the fact that someone wants an article re-created. There are perhaps some things I think pretty horrible that WP has repeatedly deleted and I want to restore, because I think they're within the proper scope of an encyclopedia, DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn but send to AFD if anyone wants to. The WP:CSD#G4 criterion simply has not been met – the versions are not "substantially identical".[1][2] Nor is the article "exclusively promotional ...". Thincat (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as per Thincat, DGG and others above. Additional sources at least mean that the notability judgement of last year should be reconsidered. The versions here are too different for G4 to apply, in my view, and I don't see this as the "utterly promotional" sort of thing for which G11 is intended. Some editors seem to see any article about a commercial product or company or one of less than stellar notability as G11-worthy. I disagree, although i am quick to delete true spam or ad-speak "articles". Prior consensus to delete should not apply in view of changed circumstances and added sources. DES (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
