- 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was deleted because the creator had been blocked. Despite being heavily contributed by other users and being a very major event. It did not have full consensus for deletion at the AfD and I doubt the admin paid attention whether others had contributed to this page or not. The deletion of this page is total censorship and WP:GRAVEDANCING of an event possibly critical of Israel. The creator being blocked is not a reason to delete a major event article which is contributed a lot by other users. KasimMejia ( talk) 17:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) [reply- Overturn – there were no arguments made at
G5, the original reason for the nomination, does not apply as this article was extensively worked on by other editors. – bradv🍁 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC) [reply- Also note that the 4 articles that were added to this AfD were nominated after the first delete !vote was cast, and the second delete !vote specifically excluded this article. – bradv🍁 20:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the rationale for deletion was
WP:NOTNEWS, that's a perfectly good rationale which nobody tried to rebut. The accusations of censorship and pro-Israel bias are completely unsubstantiated. I should point out that the claim by FOARP in the AfD that the article was written before the creator was blocked is incorrect, the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC) [reply- The rationale for
WP:NOTNEWS. That argument really doesn't apply to this article though, and no one in that AfD argued it does. – bradv🍁 02:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) [reply- Er, no, Clarityfiend clearly thought that rationale applied to this article as well. Hut 8.5 07:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
notable just because they were created by a block-evading sockpuppet. That may be rationale for an administrator to hide the sockpuppet's revisions, but the article itself should have a fulsome debate. -- Doug Mehus T· C 17:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC) [reply- That's not what I said, and that opinion does contradict ]
- Dmehus No one "short-circuted" deletion, the AfD remaiend open na full 7 days if I am not mistaken. That is normal procedue. The question is whether the AfD clsoe was proper and compliant with policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The
WP:NOTNEWS argument was only brought forward by one user, and neither accepted nor refuted by others in the discussion, it cannot be said to have consensus. Most of the discussion focused on the blocked status od the creator, and ther it was said that this article was significantly different in having edits by multiple editors known not to be socks. That means that the fact of the article creator being blocked becomes totally irrelevant, and all delete (and keep) votes based solely on it must be discounted. That leaves one editor favoring deletion on NOTNEWS grounds, and one favoring keep as important recent events . Sounds like a no-consensus result to me on this article. If someone wants to renominate to focus on the not-news issue, so be it. I won't express a view on that issue here, because it is out of scope for this DRV, I believe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC) [reply
- My !vote rationale below covers "the editors above," but specifically, per {{rto|DESiegel}), who has made the case to overturn so well. Thank you! --Doug Mehus T·C 17:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all of them. The original silly deletion was a speedy deletion because the editor who created these articles is blocked. I have contributed to these articles myself. I find this deletion unreasonable. The battle of Aden was significantly reported in the news.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all of them Also, there were two who voted to delete the articles and only one of them voted to delete the 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, meanwhile one user (myself) opposed the deletion of all. Certainly not a clear consensus to delete 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, 1 and 1. Furthermore, regarding rest of the articles, I feel they need to be restored and voted again because none of the other contributors got a chance to comment. I can't remember who those users are since the histories have been deleted, though it looks like SharabSalam is one of them. KasimMejia (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - okay, so, a real toughie. The discussion couldn't have been closed any other way; three delete arguments, one keep with no real rationale, one comment. It could've been relisted, which might've been the wiser choice; I would certainly be fine with this DRV being closed as Endorse, but relist anyways. The lack of clarity as to whether it's closed as a pseudo-G5 or a NOTNEWS is liable to be a problem going forward (if someone wants to take another stab at the articles, they deserve to know whether they're going to run afoul of G4), so I'd also be fine with endorse, reclose as explicitly CSD#G5. I don't think there's a consensus here for a deletion based on #NOTNEWS, so I don't think it can be explicitly reclosed that way? WilyD 07:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WilyD 3 users did not endorse the deletion of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, only 1 did, while 1 opposed. This article was contributed by several other users, who did not get to vote, it is a very significant event. Absolute censorship to delete this based on the creator being blocked. Do you endorse this ones deletion along side others, if so can you state why you support the deletion of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq? KasimMejia (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't really true - the nominator is also implicitly arguing for deletion. The AfD was open for seven days, which is standard. A lot of the discussion is kinda vague - I probably would've relisted for better clarity, but that's a very subjective judgement. And, of course, when you call it "absolute censorship", you completely destroy any credibility you have. From the discussion, the only choices an admin could've reasonably be made were to close as delete, or relist. WilyD 08:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) If this deletion was because the user who created these articles was blocked –although that's not what the votes arguments say– then could I recreate these articles? I am not block and is there any copyright issues if I copied the deleted articles and recreated them? Also who is the user who was blocked anyway? I still don't know who he is. I have contributed to the battle of Aden, it is significantly covered in the media just Google it and you will find a lot of sources. The battle was between the government and those who want to separate South Yemen from North Yemen and they were supported by the UAE. Recently an investigation by the US is initiated by the pentagon to investigate whether US weapons were used by those separatists in the battle [1]. Many people killed in this battle. I really don't think this is NOTNEWS and all votes for the NOTNEWS should have been dismissed. The closer shouldn't just count votes, instead he should have checked how solid are these arguments calling for the deletion, that's IMHO, especially that there are lots of articles tagged. Again if the deletion was about G5 then could I recreate these articles? I have made contributions there. Thanks in advance.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So, yes, if an article is deleted because it's created primarily/exclusively by a blocked/banned user while they're blocked/banned, then anyone else could recreate it without issue. If it's deleted because NOTNEWS, then you'd need to write a new article that addressed that concern or it could be speedily redeleted. Which is why I suggested if the close is endorsed and the article left deleted, we should at least make explicit the deletion reason(s), as the current discussion doesn't make it entirely unambiguous. WilyD 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be about NOTNEWS. The article has many citations and the battle was for months, dozons were killed in the battle. There is still a verison of the article in Google cache [2]. I really can't understand why editors said it is NOTNEWS.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the discussion goes, one editor invoked NOTNEWS, and the only response was non-committal about whether it applied. Created in violation of ban/block was more heavily invoked (but was at least someone rejected it; though, I'm not able to easily parse how accurate that is, and the discussion isn't a good guide). Maybe re-open is the wiser approach here, given all the lack of clarity. WilyD 10:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the G5 issue, it is unquestionable that this was created by an editor now blocked, and who is at least stated to have been improperly socking at that time. That editor wrote much of the text before anyone else edited the article. The history also clearly establishes that other editors edited the article after the blocked editor. I just reviewed the history and I count more than a dozen such editors, and I don't think anyone is claiming that they are socks.
WP:DEL-REASON includes the CSD reasons by explicit reference. So any comments favoring deletion based on G5 are not valid, and any based on mixed reason are not valid to the extent that they relied on G5 (including such reasons as "by a blocked sock" which is in effect an invocation of G5). I have given my views on the NOTNEWS issue above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC) [reply- "substantial" is somewhat subjective, a speedily deleting admin should be very conservative, in a discussion that's not as required (analogous to A7 vs. WP:N). If we decided the deletion was based on a pseudo-G5 reasoning, then any interested editor could re-create the article and G4 wouldn't apply, so whether or not it's a valid thing to do is a pseudo-academic question. We have a discussion where literally zero people make any kind of substantial argument for keep ... there's no way to close it but delete. All we can do is provide clarity going forward (or, if we can't, then re-open the discussion). WilyD 08:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A reason or two would not come amiss, Lightburst. Why would you want to overturn the deletion of those articles admittedly created by a now-blocked editor (who seems to have been socking at the time) with no significant contributions by anyone else? I am not fond og G5 myself, but it is current policy, and has consensus. Note that any other editor in good standing is free to create a new article on those topics, subject to our various inclusion policies, of course. I would be willing, on request, to send a list of any sources cited in the deleted version to any editor planning on creating such a new article, so no nothing much should be lost. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all per nom and the editors above. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmehus, the nom above only made a case for overturning the deletion of the one article. I, and I think most of the others who commented in favor of an overturn, similarly were only talking about the one article "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq". Do ytou have a policy-based reason to overturn the othe deletions as well? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Dmehus: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore as draft. In the matter of whether site-banned editors' contributions can always be removed, I refer you to the consensus at this discussion. As I said at the time, I don't fully agree with that consensus, but the consensus does exist that
WP:PRESERVE. However, I have considerable sympathy with the editors above whose contributions have been summarily erased through no fault of their own; in a collaborative project where all people get for their edits is a writer's credit, erasing their contributions is distinctly suboptimal. And I think we should have an article with this title. In the matter of NOTNEWS, well, basically, my position is bugger NOTNEWS. It's a really unhelpful rule. Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, but we rightly have an article on Chicken tikka masala. Wikipedia isn't a style guide, but we rightly have an article on Singular they. And Wikipedia isn't the news, but we rightly have articles on current events as they unfold. When something's attracting significant international interest, NOTNEWS needs to give way. From the draft, we'd be looking for established editors to check, confirm, edit as necessary to remove anything that's in bad faith or fails to meet core policies, and then restore to mainspace when they're satisfied it's appropriate to do so.—S Marshall T/C 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
- relist, ideally unbundled Each article needs to be looked at for who has contributed and for NOTNEWS. The discussion had so far just doesn't get me to believe more than one person (plus the nom) looked at each article. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Consensus is unclear. SilkTork (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, SilkTork I looked at the history of each of the deleted articles bundeld in the AfD after this DRV discussion started. All of them, except for "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq", had no substantial edits by anyone other than the now-blocked editor. Any other admin is of course able to double check that right now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only looked at 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq. Consensus to delete that article is unclear. I am not commenting on the other articles as we've not been asked to look at them, and it would be better if someone did want us to look at them to list them, separately from this one. I think we can get lost if we try to tangle together different arguments and rationales, especially when we haven't been asked to. SilkTork (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019, (UTC)
- I'm sorry SilkTork, my response was to those above saying "overturn all" and particularly to the comment by Hobit which was just above yours -- I was confused as to who I was responding to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The original nom seemed to think that there were enough other contributions than none of them were speediable. I've no clue who is right (different people may have different definitions of "significant" in this context) as I can't see them. I'd rather they be undeleted and we reach consensus on the issue for all of them. But yeah, the one requested sounds to be different than the rest and probably shouldn't have been part of the bundle. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit I don't see anythign in the post by KasimMejia that started this threadf which talks about any of the other articels that were bundeled with "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq" in the AfD. What are you seeing to this effect, please? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits to "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq" bu editors other than the original blocked creator:
- Over all, article went from 10,174 bytes to 15,293 bytes during the course of these edits.
- People can perhaps better judge "significant now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs
- Restore this article. It's notable & would have been soon been created even if the blocked user hasn't done so. When I edited it, I wasn't aware that the creator had been blocked; all or most of the rest of the article's editors were probably likewise unaware. I don't know anything about the blocked user or his edits, but I disagree with undoing the good work of other editors solely because the creator was blocked. The same issue is true of some other articles, including the Kulp bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed, that is the right course. Anyone who wishes to nominate for AfD agains can do so. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
