Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 24

24 March 2016

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

We didn't discuss it for 12 hours. Heavily debated deletion on policy grounds,no support for a U5 claim. 166.176.57.187 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• The deletion review process requires you to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before lodging a request here. Can you please advise why you chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  That'll be because it's the IP with the weird crush on Ricky81682. I doubt we should feed their infatuation. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  Endorse closure by default due to the nominator failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest this is speedily closed as the obvious trolling it is. This is an unsourced promotional biography which was the sole contribution of the editor who created it over five years ago, and who has not been seen since. WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn. Misuse of WP:CSD#U5. Leaving that aside, this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good call. Drafts should not remain in userspace indefinitely even if they are not BLP/overly promotional/unsourced. This should have been deleted years ago. Opposition during AfD has no solid basis in policy, speedy deletion has. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse, U5 seems to fit the case here. I find the idea that BLP provisions should not apply in the draft space to be disturbing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankveil: There's arguments that WP:V doesn't apply to drafts so hoaxes are being opposed on the basis that you can't delete it as a hoax because the actual truth of what is claimed is irrelevant since it's just a draft. It's utterly bizarre. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can't see the article. But if it's been around for years it's not clear why a speedy for U5 was appropriate or needed. BLP issues were raised at the MfD but not settled. overturn and (re)list at MfD unless someone has a claim that there is a true BLP violation (attack page, etc.) here. Draft articles are not U5 targets, they are for MfD. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it was not noticed for years is not really relevant. Remember, we're building an encyclopaedia. This article would be instantly deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in mainspace, creation of the user page is the sole contribution of the editor (whose only two edits, ever, were to this page) and that user has not been back in over five years. There is no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose to this page. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• What a wreck. Between its age (the only non-minor edits were over a two-day period in January 2010), the quality of its content (it would have been an A7 in articlespace, and barely skirts G11 outside it), and the quality of its MFD (where I can't find even one edit that was both accurate and primarily about this draft), I don't object to its deletion. On the other hand, there's no way this was a U5 - U5 does not apply to drafts of articles, or anything that even looks like a draft of an article. Gripping hand, the nominator here is a banned user, and should have just been reverted instead of indulged. Take no action. —Cryptic 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn, or rather relist at MfD. This was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. U5 is for "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", and producing encyclopedia articles is one of Wikipedia's goals. Admittedly the resulting article is unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, but WP:NOT isn't one of them. Hut 8.5 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp was deleted by the same administrator under the same speedy deletion criteria even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp resulted in userification prior that day. It had previously survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. This is the proper place to challenge the result of a close; improper unilateral action should not be taken. Furthermore, and more on point to this discussion, WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  If you want to raise a DRV on this other article then you are free to do so, adding it here as a different case seems to be little more than muddying the water. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just showing the event isn't isolated and drawing a comparison. Not sure about personally opening a DRV on it at this time, though someone else potentially could, it's being a discussed at other places at this time as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Relist. Even though it's unlikely to survive MfD, a contentious debate shouldn't be short-circuited with fallacious reasoning as appears to have happened here.  Rebbing  06:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• The DRV regulars had a very recent policy discussion about this exact subject here. I have nothing to add to what I said in that venue.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment If this page is too abusive to be temporarily undeleted can there be clarification on some relevant matters. Which user created it? When was it last edited? Was deletion urgent? Did it have an AFC header? Did it say it was a draft? Was it a BLP? If so did it have any references at all or contentious claims or was it entirely contentious or exclusively promotional? Thincat (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not too abusive; it's just that nobody asked. I've tempundeleted it. —Cryptic 15:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I was wondering if the strong antipathy to the page is because it was in some way abusive. I now understand that it is because it is an edge case. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. as obvious misuse of WP:CSD#U5. It may be a lousy article draft. but lousy article drafts on plausible article subjects simply don't qualify for speedy deletion, especially since there was a good faith, guideline-based XFD debate in progress. Completely unjustified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletionU5 says "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, (#1 goal is writing articles-this was hopeless) where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages (check), with the exception of plausible drafts (it was not a plausable draft of an article for mainspace) and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. (does not meet anything on that list)" Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a plausible draft to me. By that I mean, it looks like the early stages of a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article about a topic that is not obviously inappropriate. Can you please explain the thought process that leads you to conclude it is not a plausible draft? Thparkth (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)#

Superficially, that argument has some merit. In this case, however, it is fatally undermined by the fact that the user has made no other edits at all, and has not touched this page in five years. That undoubtedly looks more like a WEBHOST violation than an actual attempt to write an article. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that a plausible draft is turned into a WP:WEBHOST violation merely by editor inactivity and the passage of time is unsupported by policy and consensus. Thparkth (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn. This was a clear attempt at a draft; it does not qualify for WP:U5. Whether intentional or not, the speedy deletion during an MfD amounted to a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think were that article in mainspace today, it would not be a good candidate for an A7. Photographers are sometimes notable, so being a photographer whose work has been published in several well-known magazines is a WP:CCS. It probably would not meet GNG and would be deleted after discussion, though. Are you saying that this was an IAR delete, not a U5? If we want to decide as a community that user space is to be cleaned up, then we should do so by documenting the new consensus at WP:UP and WP:CSD - not by applying CSD criteria in ways we personally believe they should be applied. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify JzG, the reason we are at DRV is because using your bit to supervote is not the intended purpose of the mop. You clearly feel that MfD should be used to keep user space tidy, but opinions on the subject are running both ways and enforcing your opinion via deletion while the subject is under discussion seems inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

However, that is not what I did. I looked at the page and reviewed it in context with the user's non-existent history. I paid no attention at all to anything else - no vote, super or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn. U5 does not apply to a draft article, no matter how unsourced it is. It is best to let the discussion run its course. Esquivalience ^t 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn It was a draft and so not U5 and since deletion wasn't urgent it shouldn't have been speedied during an MFD anyway. Poor behaviour by the closer. If the MFD had been allowed to continue I would have been sympathetic to it being deleted because it a "no-hope draft" (no indication of importance) which hasn't been edited for a long time. I don't at all agree with the suggestion above that MFD can't delete on such grounds if there is consensus for that. Such a deletion would in my view be very different from deleting a seemingly abandoned draft of worthwhile quality or deleting a recent poor draft. If there are a lot of such drafts and if there is a consistency of decision then a new speedy criterion could be proposed. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment WOW the amount of words here compared to the actual draft is incredible. We have what reads like a vanity piece, the apparent sole contribution of an editor 5 years ago, nominated by a banned user as part of a campaign against a specific editor. Good to see we all have our priorities straight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I see two reasons why this is actually important:
    • CSD is easily open to abuse where the only meaningful check-and-balance is DRV. As such, it's important we get this right.
    • IMO, deleting "stale" drafts and stuff is yet another way to drive away potential contributors. Sure, 95% of these folks are never going to contribute usefully. But when doing this for 1000 users, that might be a significant number of contributors we've driven away. And, again IMO, all for no significant benefit.

So yeah, to me this is an important issue. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• You are right it's important that we have checks and balances such that those wishing to troll other editors can get a fair hearing, and that contributor (who isn't present here or indeed anywhere it appears) with these two edits five years ago we might be driving off. It's that significant that these few words get such coverage and so many words from so many wikipedians, whilst real articles etc. with real editors at DRV/MFD/XFD can barely raise a comment, whilst those articles/drafts get no improvements. Yep you've convinced me that this is all totally in perspective.

You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make isn't that this page is particularly special. It's all the other pages that will and/or are seeing the same outcome that I'm worried about. In the same way, some court cases are pretty minor for the specific case, but important overall. e.g., Roe vs. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2016‎ (UTC)

• Relist for a proper discussion. This is not the placeto decide the merits. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn U5 and relist for a proper discussion. The thing should still be deleted but it should be deleted because it deserves to be deleted. Otherwise, I still say that if anyone wants to adopt this thing, I think that would kill all further arguing here, unless again people take merit to the ridiculous concerns about an editor who five years ago put up a promotional draft and never did anything since then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. Draft was a credible draft for mainspace, and for that reason is U5-ineligible. Secondly, there were valid "keep" votes at MfD, which override speedy deletion, as speedy deletion is for routine cases for which there is no desire for two-sided discussion. There is a recent trend of liberal interpretation of the CSD criteria that must be repudiated. Admins are not the ruling class of Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)