Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 12

Big Fish Theory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

removing the page was agreed upon, deleting the article history was not agreed upon Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some specific action that you're proposing? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Reinstate redirect with article history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Simply put, as a reply to your DRV request: yes, actually, it was agreed upon. That's what deletion is; it both removes the article and deletes the article history. See WP:DELETION for more details. SkyWarrior 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Actually, @Gongshow:, @Another Believer: and I all agreed to redirect instead of delete. This implies no consensus to remove the potentially useful article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect. With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, (SkyWarrior's comment to the contrary notwithstanding, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm unsympathetic to the nominator here. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. Forcing people to argue against a position you don't hold is disruptive.
  On the merits, this has already been recreated as a redirect, and that deletion discussion doesn't make it a G4. The deleted history looks unlikely to be useful, and the two non-redirect recreations since the AFD don't exactly fill me with confidence that a history undeletion wouldn't be exploited to recreate the article. —Cryptic 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Cryptic:, I took the article to AFD because there is no such thing as "Articles for discussion", the {{PROD}} was removed, and two of the potential results of AFD are "Merge" and "Redirect with History". Unless it is agreed to delete the article history, that history should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- I agree with Jax 0677 and Cryptic. Reyk _YO! 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we even here? The album has apparently been released, and a seemingly reasonable article appears at that target. Can we put the past article history back underneath the current article? I don't see why not: no reason NOT to came up in the AfD. So assuming this article is on the same album, and no objectionable (e.g., copyvio, defamation, etc. as opposed to simply non-notable) material was present, then can someone just undelete the past history and us all move on? Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Jclemens:, the article was created after this discussion was started. I agree that the article can remain in tact as it currently stands, and a WP:HISTMERGE should take place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect and restore the history per Jclemens. The AfD was incorrectly closed as delete with both delete !votes failing to take into account WP:ATD-R (one was only a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a non-applicable essay) while a majority correctly favored redirection; even the nominator was in favor of a redirect. I cannot see a policy-based reason to delete this article and none was mentioned at the AFD. Overturning the deletion also restores the history, so two problems solved at once. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page due to this interview from a significant source about album as well as various sources about the upcoming release of the LP. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect per SoWhy. I see a consensus that the article shouldn't exist, but not a consensus to delete the history and the alternative of redirecting was raised and effectively argued for. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: Requesting deletion and then contesting the requested outcome is frivolous, and responding to such requests is a waste of time.  Sandstein  22:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the requester is now apparently blocked for disruption, so maybe this was all trolling?  Sandstein  22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kekistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is also for Republic of Kekistan, and specifically to overturn the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 12 to prevent redirects. Both Kekistan and Republic of Kekistan were full hoax articles, which were rightly deleted. You'd have to see the deleted content to appreciate how hoaxy they were - in short they were dressed up as proper countries. The Deletion Review was closed with a (small) consensus against the creation of redirects, and recreation of the full articles ended up with both titles being salted. I've received applications to remove the protection (here and here) in order to create redirects. One of the other deleting admins passed it on to me (here). I've basically passed it on to the closer of the DRV (here) who recommended DRV as the appropriate venue. This seems like a formality and the bar shouldn't be too high to create these redirects. I move to overturn the previous DRV decision which prevented redirects. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- This sounds reasonable, but the new redirects would need to be protected for the same reasons the originals were salted. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and definitely protect them to stop the inevitable vandalism. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sounds reasonable to me although I emphasise that the redirects would absolutely need to be protected to stop them becoming targets for vandalism once more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Support and protect per the above. It's a reasonable target, but without protection, we will have problems. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with protection. The two titles seem like an absolutely plausible search target, so I don't see any reason not to have a redirect. I don't think this even needs to go the full 7 days. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIITJEE (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

We need to review whether G11 is really appropriate. This article was actually kept at AfD 8 years ago. However, it was speedy deleted anyway several times later. The users who deleted the page since the AfD were NawlinWiki, Jimfbleak (twice), Vanamonde93, and Dlohcierekim. The page was also previously salted by There'sNoTime. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.It was also deleted four times prior to the AfD. For the record, by User:Rockpocket (3 June 2007), User:Khukri (12 July 2007), User:Kylu (6 February 2009), and User:Accounting4Taste (16 February 2009). Although, admittedly, all of those admins are now retired (or, in one case, taking a five-year long wikibreak). Incidentally, NawlinWiki presumably realised that it survived an AfD, as he overtuned his own speedy two minutes later (e/s= 'speedy not appropriate'). Mind you, it's times like this I wish I could see the history- things like 'bad faith CSD nom', for example! But on the whole, the best place to resolve this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIITJEE 2. Without pre-empting any results, is certainly the case that what was considered many years ago and survived an AfD nom is in no way guaranteed to be so or to do so now  :) however, I accept that in order to be taken back there, it would have to be restored procedurally. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't see the article, but looking at the Wayback machine, it didn't look like a G11 candidate to me. Given it has made it through AfD before, it needs to go to AfD. So overturn speedy and list at AfD as desired. The sources in the article that I saw were weak enough there may be a WP:N argument. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, maybe list at AfD. The deleted text is simply not promotional - it's borderline A7, but one of the references lists it as the largest of its type in the country[1] so along with everything else it's probably not a speedy. The db-spam tag was added with this parameter: "reason=This article is about a recent tuition centre in India, which is not notable enough to have an article on an encyclopaedia. Specifically, the reasons for its non-notability are: Limited interest to the public, Lack of independent sources (non-routine coverage)", which is not a G11 reason. It's also worth pointing out that all of the recent deletions and undeletions are the result of tagging by the same one editor. That alone should be enough to list it at AfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment from most recent deleter AGREE w/ restore. Not sure how back that should go. I should have more closely looked at the history. I make note that Specialpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had previously tagged for CSD and had it declined more than once. If someone had appealed on my talk page, I'd have restored. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I just looked at the version from 8 June 2017, at 06:24 (ET). It is somewhat promotional, but I would not have accepted (would have declined) a G11 on this text. Overturn to normal editing. Do not automatically list at AfD, if it is to be listed, there should be an actual nominator to make a proper case for deletion, and to do WP:BEFORE searches on it first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the log files, this looks like a mess. Is it possible that we're dealing with a paid deletion tagger, someone acting in bad faith to delete the competition's coverage? Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with a small {{trout}} for those admins deleting the page when it had already survived AfD and thus was not eligible for speedy deletion. Even if it had been, G11 did not apply since multiple revisions contained neutral text. I believe the deletion policy allows Dlohcierekim as the last one to delete the article to reverse their decision without this having to go the whole 7 days. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've pushed the restore button twice to no avail. Not awake yet. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]