Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 6

Windows 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Endorse redirect. Whilst I agree it probably should have been dealt with by an admin, my opinion is that the decision was correct. Despite there being other options such as retargeting, the majority of 'keeps' were in favour of a straight redirect. The redirect with hatnote at the top of
  0 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep article and argument should be speedily closed. This was already discussed here and it was voted to be kept not even a week ago: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 30#Windows 9. Pointless opening of this topic again. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is Deletion Review, not Redirects for Discussion, and the page you linked is the RfD that this DRV is reviewing. We're here to determine whether the closure of the RfD was appropriate (rather than, directly, whether the redirect should be kept); in other words, the outcome of the RfD is not binding here, as the purpose of DRV is to determine whether it was correct. If XfD outcomes were binding on DRV, then we'd have to speedy-endorse every single closure brought here, which would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. (Or in other words, if this issue is going to be brought up, here is the right place to do it.) --ais523 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - An overwhelming majority of the participants were in favor of the outcome. Many participants did explicitly state that they think the redirect should remain pointing to Windows 10, and there is no reason to believe a significant number of people would instead be in favor of retargeting. Retargeting is a common outcome of RFD discussions, and anyone not suggesting that position can reasonably be assumed to not want the redirect retargeted. I do believe the closer was wrong to discount votes that said things like "it is useful" and "likely to be searched by thousands of people", since those are valid reasons for keeping a redirect (the closer was erroneously applying the criteria that should be used at AFD to RFD, when the RFD criteria are different). However, the discussion was still closed with the correct outcome, so discounting those votes didn't matter in the end. Calathan (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect as is. The technicality of the closure being done by the wrong person with the wrong stated rationale doesn't invalidate the clear consensus it reflected: that a redirect to Windows 10 was useful, logical, and addressed the fact that yes, it was widely called "Windows 9" (both inside and outside Microsoft) before it was branded as "Windows 10". Reopening the question just to get another consideration of the (very weakly supported) suggestion to retarget to Windows 9x is unconstructive. -20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• There's no reason at all why you had to be an admin to close that debate. We should certainly overturn closes when they're wrong. We should not be overturning closes because the closer lacks some irrelevant technical tools. That's intolerably bureaucratic and wasteful.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Hi.
  WP:NOTDEMO, consensus is not decided by head counting but by the strength of the arguments made and the supporting policies if any. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse a quality NAC close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the plainly accurate and appropriate NAC close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the consensus was clear.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Non-adminship should be no big deal. The close was well-reasoned (probably better than many admin closes are), and although not explained perfectly, it would clearly have been inappropriate to close the RfD any other way. Non-admins are discouraged from closing XfDs as "delete" because it doesn't save anyone any work (an administrator will have to recheck the close and delete the page), but apart from that, there's no reason why they shouldn't help maintain XfD. (Also, it'd be crazy if non-admins are supposed to assign different standards to closes than admins, because then whether a page gets deleted or not would depend on who happened to close it.
  WP:VOTE is applied could affect the actual outcome, but that hasn't happened here, no matter what you do with the potentially dubious !votes.) --ais523 07:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC
  )
• Endorse but
  talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Abuja Declaration (1989) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hoax, per

• Request temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) It is reasonable to make the history accessible, even if a copyright violation, temporarily, for the purpose of determining whether it is a copyright violation. It is copyright paranoia to believe that non-live page history versions must never be seen even to determine whether there is a problem on the mere voiced suspicion that there is an unfixed copyright issue. The question of whether it is a hoax, or about a hoax seems a real question. Few copyright issues are unfixable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse speedy deletion based not on

WP:CSD#G12, unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nairaland.com/1840446/abuja-declaration-oic-1989. There have been two Abuja Declarations (1989 and 2001) and the hoax tag was by placed by someone confusing them. The earlier one, which this article purports to describe, is discussed here and here and, somewhat, here. The WP article's editing has been flagged up here (a web site with the alarming tag line "Nothing but the Truth") The article was a copy and paste from this which seems to be an entirely biassed statement about the declaration. So, if we should have an article on this topic (and I think it is a notable topic) the present article is an entirely unsatisfactory starting point. The edit by Greg Abdul[1] was a good faith attempt to improve the article but far more needed to be done to make the article acceptable. Thincat (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Undelete with revert — The article needs to be reverted to either the edit by Greg Abdul here or the edit before here . All the listed "copyright infringements" , (which are not) occurred because the article was deleted from Wikipedia based on
  WP:CSD#G3 (which it is not). Please note that the external websites copied this article from Wikipedia before it was edited and were used as sources (I'm presuming by people unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works) to recreate the edited/deleted article. Please confirm from the creation date on the external websites here [1] and here [2] and see that they were created after the one on Wikipedia here. (i.e. if they haven't been manipulated). There is currently an ongoing research to improve the article and hopefully we'll get a better/satisfactory starting point. — Aijosh (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

::You may well be right about reverse copying. I had interpteted "Aug 02" as 2002 but it probably means 2 August of an unspecified year (2014?). However, it seems to me unreasonable to criticise changing the statement "Africa should become completely Islamic"[2] to "Africa should fairly represent Islam in government and civic life".[3] Didn't this better reflect the Declaration?[4] The article started off in a bad way "with the goal to win the whole of Africa for islam"[5] and when it was deleted was again in a bad state "with the goal to win the whole of Africa for Islam"[6] However, there may have been an acceptable version in between that I had not spotted. If there is I agree it should be reverted to (and then sent to AFD). Thincat (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No copyright violation that I can see. [7] links back to Wikipedia as the source (see the bottom of that post for "Source"). This one [8] which is dated Aug 02 is almost certainly from 2014: click the name of the poster to view his profile and you see the registration date of July 22, 2014. Crow^Caw 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Yes, neither G3 nor G12. However, I can't see any acceptable version in the history to revert to (I've now looked). All versions seem to include unattributed commentary on the declaration alongside parts of the declaration itself without making a clear distinction. So maybe a fresh stub. This site claims to be reproducing the declaration verbatim but the web page as a whole gives an entirely different (and antagonistic) gloss on what was really going on and what was meant. I suppose this is the horse's mouth but it isn't claiming to be a Declaration or a Communiqué. I won't strike my !vote above because some of it still seems to apply and I'll leave it to someone of great wisdom to sort all this out. Thincat (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. The deletion was based on the assumption that this was a copyright violation. There seems to be clear agreement here that this is not the case. Therefore, the
  WP:G12 deletion was in error. There may be other problems with the content, but as much as AfD is not for cleanup, DRV even more so. So, I would say restore the article and allow people to address the content problems through normal editorial action, or even bring it to AfD if anybody feels that's what's needed. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

PS; it should be restored to the last pre-deletion version, minus the administrative templates. It's not DRV's place to be cherry-picking which prior version is the "right" one. Let editors figure that out as they work on the content. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)*[reply]

• Overturn speedy The material turns out not to be a copyright infringement or a hoax. I have struck my previous irrelevant comments (however, the article is, and has always been, seriously bad). Thincat (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]