Slovaks in Hungary – After a discussion at ANI the deletion (via userfication) was somewhat endorsed as "means justified by ends", and it was suggested that the article be improved to meet inclusion criteria and other relevant guidelines and moved back to mainspace at that time. Please note I have vacated the 19:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) closure by Spartaz, as it is quite clear (to this observer, anyways) that userfication is a form of deletion and xFD's closed as "userfy without redirect" may certainly be reviewed at DRV. However, in this case further discussion at DRV is not required as it seems to be a foregone conclusion. –xenotalk 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
There are several reasons why I believe this close was a bad close:
Most importantly, the admin that closed it was very far from independent, see this post.
The admin has virtually admitted they have not followed process, see this post
The AfD was open for under three hours.
A new editor had just offered to stubify the article and this offer never got a proper discussion. It is my view that stubifing the article in better than userfying as more users are likely to find it and contribute to it. I think this option deserved discussion.
I realise that my actions in bringing this AfD are open to debate but because this admin disagrees with my reasoning for it he seems to have decided to override process. Dpmuk (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be a futile exercise in process over policy. The article was badly written in fractured English, had very few and almost exclusively unreliable and polemical sources, gave the impression of novel synthesis and was unquestionably not compliant with WP:NPOV - the creator has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing. There is clear consensus, to my reading, at ANI and AfD, that this article is not compliant with core policy. It was userfied for rework but the DRV requester moved it back. It has now been userfied again. The article cannot possibly stay in mainspace in anything like its current form, the only question is whether having the current massively noncompliant version behind the history of a new stub (which would be extremely unlikely to contain any of the current content) would be better than rewriting the current content in user space. The "offer to stubify" is not relevant since a new stub could be created right now if that user wants. Why on earth the requester is insisting on having this unusable junk in mainspace is an exercise I will leave for the reader. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest starting again with a new stub - after finding reliable sources. These ethnic issues need careful treatment. Some admins have a lot of experience about the quickest way to get an article sorted, and Guy is one of them - listen to what he says, and you'll have a much more productive time here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At DRV, our basic job is to check if the deletion process has been followed properly. Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. On Wikipedia, the appearance of bias is sufficient to call an administrative action into question. Meatballwiki's article on FairProcess is also highly relevant. In this specific case, after taking the position he did in that AN/I discussion, JzG should not have closed the debate two hours and forty-however-many minutes after it was opened. Overturn and relist, and follow the process properly, so that the article can be deleted in a correct and orderly fashion.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been deleted. Its been userfied so there is no deletion to review. Therefore this is out of scope for DRV. – SpartazHumbug! 19:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the above comment was moved from the closing statement here. –xenotalk 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I wish to undelete this article so I can work on it. There is a lot of new coverage which would make this a notable topic. Have already discussed it with deleting administrator, who said to take the case here.[1] The article was deleted years ago, but the situation has certainly changed. Google news search considers this site a notable news search, it appearing in its news search now. Over 600 Wikipedia articles link to it as a source for information presented in them. According to http://www.411mania.com/about_us "Today, 411mania.com serves 15-20 million impressions per month, has been mentioned on/in mainstream media outlets such as CNN, TNT, TBS, USA Network, SpikeTV, FOX News, MSNBC, ESPN, ESPN The Magazine, MTV, and VH1". They have interviewed many notable people, and many major new outlets quote from them. Please look at this: [2] That should establish notability clearly. DreamFocus 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why sending it to the incubator or userfying as a first step wouldn't be acceptable? I'm not saying you need to, I'm just asking if that would be acceptable. If you prefer restoration to mainspace, could you list the sources you're planning on using to meet WP:N? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy first. The clarity of establishment of notability is not clear enough, and may become clear in a formatted referenced article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a news site notable if it is referenced by many other major sites? Would that information alone prove it was notable? Would an article need to link to dozens of examples of this happening to prove it was notable? DreamFocus 08:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would say no, it's not. You need at least something in the way of independent reliable sources to write the article. Certainly if the coverage were weak I'd say the references by major sites might push it over the line. But not enough by itself either by WP:N or in my own personal opinion. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I wish to undelete this article so I can work on it." Fine. Userfy.╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy first, and then have review before allowing move to mainspace. Verbalchat 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore or userfy, but either way, restore edit history as well, since this may contain useful information in building the article. Dew Kane (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Can't see the reliable sourcing for this. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While this was deleted a long time ago - which usually tends to weigh in favour of restoration - the sourcing of the userspace draft does not overcome the strong reasons why the article was deleted. Thus allowing this to be restored and then sent to another AfD where it would inevitably be deleted is futile. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there is no usable version of this article anywhere in its long and inglorious history. Redirecting to the list of pranks is a bad idea, we have enough trouble keeping made-up nonsense form that article already. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I agree with JzG that a redirect is not necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
