Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 15

Miss Grand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

Article was improperly tagged and deleted as G4, even though it was entirely newly created and can't have borne any resemblance to an article, about a different subject, which had been deleted in 2017 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination). I've brought this up with the deleting admin DGG, who moved an unrelated draft over the deleted article and reverted it back to draft, without restoring the article in question. It's been over ten days since the deletion, and seeing as it currently seems inconvenient for him to divert attention to the issue, I've informed him that I'm bringing this to DRV instead. Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undeleted for DRV - the new article is in the history of
  Draft:Miss Grand WilyD 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wait, no, the old version is at Miss_Grand_International - okay, I'll temp restore that too, so people can judge G4-ness. EITHER WAY, DELETE THAT WHEN THIS IS DONE WilyD 12:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Overturn, undelete all and ask Paul 012 to see if he can fix the mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse considering greater G4 leeway when the AfD was closed with a consensus of "delete. And WP:SALT". It is not the same page, and the author may justifiably feel aggrieved, but "repeatedly recreated" applies. Note also the existence of

Draft:Miss Grand

. I do not read the re-creations as overcoming the AfD decision.

However, there must be a way to try again after more than a year to challenge the old AfD decision. I suggest: (1) the patrolling admin may refer any G4-eligible page to AfD instead. Note that he did not. (2) Use

Draft:Miss Grand

. Any discovered forks should be fixed by redirection, not deletion.

Another important consideration is that the topic and sources are a foreign language. Personally I would want, and I recommend, linking to an already existing native language Wikipedia article. If an en deleted topic is not notable in its native language, there is a heavy presumption against it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere at

WT:CSD, with some editors voicing concerns over the idea.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the specific suggestions, I don't currently plan to further work on the subject, and personally, I do not see the value of taking this through AfC, placing the burden on a single reviewer to weigh the status of an article against the spirit of the arguments from previous discussions. A new AfD would be preferable. Thai Wikipedia articles exist for Miss Grand Thailand (th:มิสแกรนด์ไทยแลนด์) and Miss Grand International (th:มิสแกรนด์อินเตอร์เนชันแนล), though not as a central overview (which I created with the expectation that the two subtopics would be redirected there, though Miss Grand Thailand has since separately been created, and I wouldn't object to an eventual merge somehow, if it is to be retained). Note also that I had notified Black Kite, one of the salting admins (but not the AfD closer, who is no longer active), of the page's creation, and requested re-creating the salted title as a redirect, which they did not object to. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul_012. "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere? That's because I only just made it up. There are many AfDs, many recreations, an explicit consensus to SALT, and the latest recreation looked like a Whac-A-Mole attempt at avoiding the SALT by using a different title. It is also a confusing mess to have multiple versions. Anyway, from you answer, it seems to me that you are sensible, and I think we should overturn the G4 deletion and let you fix everything up as you see fit. Redirect the lower quality copies to the best version in mainspace, and explicitly link to the Thai version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When Paul asked me about this, I suggested Draft:Miss Grand as a suitable way to start dealing with this material. As he wasn't satisfied, and as I have not yet figured out anything better, he brought this here. I don't think the history of the decisions matter--the goal is to find a way towards an article if an article is possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The sourcing currently at
  Draft:Miss Grand
  is all non-independent, and useless for moving forward with.

The sourcing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand&oldid=997876075 is superior, although in Thai. I suggest working from that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the
  Draft:Miss Grand which looks to me somewhat similar to the undeleted version of what was last deleted by AFD. So what is in draft is a bit like the old deleted article and not the new one. Or maybe I'm confused? G4 seems utterly inappropriate: the content is completely different and the references are (completely?) different. Even the topic is somewhat different: a national event where the old article was about a strongly associated international event. SmokeyJoe's arguments might be highly persuasive at WP:Village pump (policy), less so at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion, but are not at all convincing that this speedy deletion was within policy or even close to it. Thincat (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is why I come back to these discussions. My first reading was confused on a few things, including what exactly was G4-ed. That said, I do think G4 has more leeway when there was a consensus to SALT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Just to note that sometimes when an article fails to be deleted at AFD in spite of many attempts, it is salted when at last a deletion is successful.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that what SmokeyJoe observes is true, but question whether it should be. In theory, every G4 should be considered independently, and the SALTing of a target should not play into such a decision. In practice, it's hard to distinguish why someone is working around a SALTed title to put a new article in place. Experienced Wikipedians will tend to ask for an un-SALTing, while both inexperienced Wikipedians and sockpuppets/SPAs will not. Experienced admins do tend to jump to G4 a bit too hastily, and I suspect for relatively benign ABF reasons--that is, assuming sockpuppetry rather than inexperience. Regardless, in this case Overturn speedy and send to whatever other process, if any, is desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If overturned, please also restore the talk page and the redirect from Miss Grand International (the version created 31 December 2020[2]). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CUeject (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not a "blatant hoax". This should have been at most tagged with Template:Humor and at least done nothing in line with other things such as Template:8ball. The page was not informational and is subsequently not a hoax. Can be sent to TFD if necessary but not a valid use of CSD (page is both a template and not a hoax). Naleksuh (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation of this template implied that it was used by Checkusers at SPI, which is incredibly far from "not a hoax"; this is a direct reference to Among Us and is not actually used by the CU team. I have no issue with it being restored to a title that doesn't imply that CUs use it, but as it was it was not acceptable. For the record, G3 applies to pages in all namespaces, so being a template means little. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primeface: For the record, G3 applies to pages in all namespaces, so being a template means little. I think I phrased this poorly. While templates are not inherently immune to G3, what I meant was that the page was not informational and is not really possible for it to be a hoax. It can't even form a complete sentence without user input.

I don't recall implying that the template was actively being used by CheckUsers. I think I made it clear that it was intended for use by CheckUsers, and added it to a list with all the other templates. If its association with SPI pages is a problem, it could have a name such as Template:Eject or Template:Ejected (since it could be used for things besides SPIs) however 1) I would like to keep it in the list and 2) Template:CUeject should still redirect there. Is that sound good? Naleksuh (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Repinging since I misspelled your name last time. Naleksuh (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a CU template, and the reason I deleted it was because a clerk noticed it and questioned why it was created. I have no issue restoring to your proposed name, but it should not have a CU-related redirect. Primefac (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: that is not a speedy deletion reason. It might, at a push, have been an arguable T2 deletion but that was repealed in July with explicit instructions to use TfD instead. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This person is an imposter", and giving reference to a very popular game (arguably a meme at this point) in my mind is most definitely a joke, especially since it looked like a CU template. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes are not speedy deletable unless they are pure vandalism (clearly not the case here) or a blatant hoax (see below). Looking like a CU template is not a reason for speedy deletion either. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, send to TfD and trout the deleting admin. Was this template useful? unlikely. Was it a blatant hoax? not even close. Blatant hoaxes are pages that actively, intentionally and unequivocally mislead about the subject, a template that says "(user) was ejected" is no more or less misleading than {{confirmed}} or any other of the result templates used by CUs are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Template has been restored to Template:Eject (I was going to wait for the OP's reply, but the discussion above is to the point where it doesn't need to wait). Primefac (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refer to TfD. DRV is not competent to understand template hoax humour, and nothing productive will come from trying. This looks like a waste of time even without trying to understand what it is about. "Eject was ejected." Is that funny? Is that remotely useful? I suspect
  WP:SOCK and WP:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Accusing another editor of both sockpuppetry and bot editing at the same time, because you do not like a template they created, is quite simply
    assuming bad faith. Regardless, the page in question was undeleted so there is no need to continue this discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Mark Simmons (comedian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Comedian is definitely notable now, having been on numerous TV panel shows since the deletion. TomJ1991 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd really need to find and present some
  our usual inclusion criterion to make much headway, eh? WilyD 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse but allow draftifying if desired. The XfD was properly closed and no sources are presented here, so restoring straight to mainspace is not going to happen but if someone wants to work on improving it in draftspace then I don't see a reason not to allow that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This does not belong at DRV. Blame User:SportingFlyer for blocking attempts at improving the broken documentation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose.

The AfD is almost a year old. The subject is active and could well now be notable. If the comedian is "definitely notable", one should be definitely about to demonstrate this with two or three suitable sourced. Read the advice at

WP:REFUND for Mark Simmons (comedian). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse and allow draft/re-creation per the above advice. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]