- American Party of Labor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It was mistakenly nominated for speedy deletion despite the page being recreated from scratch and accounted for the previous complaints. I ask for the deletion to be reverted until a consensus can be reached. As I have stated, I am more then happy to attentively listen to any criticism regarding my work, but I cannot improve it when my work is being deleted due to its name. Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not remember the changes made to the final draft. It is very demoralizing to have my article deleted on incorrect grounds, then be told I cannot recreate it due to a criticism I can correct.
- By reading the criteria the page was deleted upon; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion,
- it becomes clear that the policy states that new articles which differ in substance from the deleted one, or one that has accounted for the original reason for its deletion, should not be deleted.
- This article demonstrates notability with multiple nontrivial independent sources, and I intend to add more. For that, I need to access the latest revision.
- I am very much okay with having someone revert the edits I make. That way, I can at least continue improving it and discuss it in talk if necessary; instead, the article was speedily deleted.
- Sincerely,
- Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting case. Definitely not a snowball because the decision to delete out of mainspace is very much defensible. You should use fewer references to the Red Phoenix magazine because it's not independent or neutral; use references that point instead to some other source. Personally I would want to see another properly independent and disinterested source that's written by an accredited academic or a professional journalist with checkable credentials before I felt it was ready for mainspace. For me, a red warning flag is that the organisation's membership is not stated, which makes me think it could well be a very small group. Do you have trade union affiliations, or whatever the US equivalent might be? Or are you funded purely by member donations?—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We should use a 'proposed deletion' process before deleting this article.
- I have not invoked the snowball clause because this article is beyond criticism. Quite the contrary, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and understand that no good work can come out of my time here if I don't get corrected.
- I invoked the snowball clause because the original reasons for the 'speedy delete' are objectively inappropriate.
- Once the article is back, I will take measures to address all the criticism you presented; Then, if you still think the article should be deleted, the normal process is the one that should be used.
- Defending an erroneous deletion of an article without allowing the author to address the criticism is counterproductive.
- We must judge an article based on its merit, not because it was mistakenly deleted. Evermore so, when the page is a work in progress whose improvement is being hindered due to an oversight.
- The APL does have trade union affiliations, for example, with the IWW.
- I do not understand the implication that I am affiliated with the APL. I live more than a continent away and don't even have an ICMLPO related organization where I live.
- Although the article already had many independent sources, I added more of them to the draft and removed multiple affiliated ones, as you requested.
- There are thirty-seven references in the current version of the article; five (13.5%) are from academic sources. Only seven are affiliated with the Party, which amounts to only 18.9% of citations.
- For comparison, the article on the Israeli parliament (The Knesset) has twenty-three references, out of which fourteen (60.8%) are directly affiliated to the Knesset itself, and only one (4.3%) is academic.
- The State Assembly of Estonia (Riigikogu) article, which has only six references, out of which 3 (50%) are affiliated to the institution, and one (16.6%) academic source, which is cited twice (33.3%).
- The article on the Democratic Party's Democratic National Convention (DNC) has forty-two references, seven (16.6%) are directly operated by the Party, and only six (14.2%) are academic.
- I can improve the article further when I am allowed to access it, have the public discuss it, and share their input in the appropriate fields.
- Sincerely,
- Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As the admin who deleted this article, I'm sort of at a loss here. Andrei Zhdanov asked me to revert my CSD deletion and at the same time opened a Deletion Review. So, once this discussion was opened, I didn't feel I could simply revert my deletion decision until this deletion review can to a conclusion. Once an editor has opened a noticeboard discussion, it's not a matter of what I should do or not do but what the consensus of this discussion is. I can admit that I might have erred on the deletion (although I believe it was justified) but now that this discussion has begun, I defer to the editors who are participating here to come to a decision over what to do about this article. I'd recommend returning it to Draft space but there is already an existing draft that is pretty similar to what existed in main space. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The solution is simple; the mistaken deletion should be
overturned.
Any further discussion should take place on the article 'talk' page.
There is no consensus in support of returning the page to Draftspace. Regardless, the deletion review is not the place to make such a decision. We are only here to judge the speedy deletion.
"Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate."
Thus, per my previous recommendation on your talk page, you should acknowledge the deletion as erroneous and request a speedy overturn.- Sincerely,
- Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- By nominating here, you have already indicated your wish to overturn the deletion. Please don't add further bolded comments, which may be misread as there being more support for your request than there actually is. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The most recent deletion, a speedy deletion by Liz, must be overturned. The quoted speedy deletion criterion CSD:G4 did not apply as the deleted article was not substantially identical to the version deleted at AFD in December. As such, deletion process has not been correctly followed and we must put that right.
Regardless of where we go from here, however, I would urge User:Andrei Zhdanov to be considerably more concise in his submissions here and to any future discussions. We're already approaching WP:TEXTWALL territory and it is a tendency of Wikipedians, rightly or wrongly, to dismiss or disregard prolix arguments regardless of their merits. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This discussion is a train wreck, largely because there seem to be two trains, one in draft space, and one that was speedily deleted, whose deletion is being appealed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - What would the effect be if I were to Accept the draft version into article space? Would it be possible to resolve any differences between that version and the invisible version by normal editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Accepting the draft seems like the least confused way to do this, unless it is considered procedurally important to maintain the trainwreck (perhaps to do a post-wreck analysis on the trains). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent suggestion.
It will have identical effects to an overturn while combining the trains to solve the trainwreck.
To avoid the loss of my work, it is also best to do a history merge so I can incorporate the deleted additions.
Sincerely,
Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have accepted the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Close without action – the draft has been accepted, so any further discussion about whether the G4 was correct is academic. The article can be renominated at AfD if anyone feels it to be necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We can indeed close it without action iff the terms of use have been complied with. A sysop has to check that because they can view the deleted revisions. They need to work out whether the userspace version was a copy-paste of the now-deleted mainspace version, and if it was then they need to check whether the contributors were the same. It's possible that there might need to be a history merge to preserve attribution.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding S Marshall's point, it looks like the mainspace version deleted in the AfD is quite different from the current mainspace text. The version deleted as G4 by Liz is identical to the current mainspace version but both were written by the same editor. So I don't think a history merge would be needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
