- User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This is my personal page that i was working on until the band met the requirements of WP:BAND so that when they did meet the requirements i would not have to create and entirely new page and just move my Personal page to the mainsapce. Please restore it Immediately. --Kygora 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This band will Meet what is need for WP:BAND in the near Future. They are Signed to a Major Record label.--Kygora 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not related to that, that one was one that i moved to that persons Userspace because they tried putting it on the Mainspace when it is currently not allowed. also, it is terribly cited and a complete and terrible version compared to my amazing cited and well done version(which came first) --Kygora 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- qualified restore- Unless I'm missing something, I'm just not seeing a reason why a userspace draft wouldn't be allowable for this band. in the DRV listed above, Tarc makes the case that while they don't meet any notability criteria now, there's a reasonable chance that they will in the not-so-distant future. I do add that my restore is qualified in the event that there's something I'm missing. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole discussion here is the wrong way around. We aren't the userspace police. It's not for Kygora to explain why his userspace article is justified. It's for Jayjg to explain why it was necessary to delete it.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming the G4 is a follow on to the MfD which deleted a user-space draft of the same name. I think that means the deleting admin followed the rules correctly. I'm not overly fond of the underlying MfD though (it's really not clear WP:FAKEARTICLE applies here if the band is likely to be notable shortly, and if Tarc thinks it might be, I'll tend to believe it). I'd suggest the content be restored as an IAR thing, but unless I'm missing something there was nothing technically wrong with the G4. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore per S Marshall. Userspace is the right place for such drafts. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the deletion log comment "Recreated 16 times now?" accurate? Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- negative... that admin is severely mistaken and blind to facts. There was a mainspace article that was recreate 15 times so he is somehow comparing my draft/userspace article as a recreation. --Kygora= —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- There have certainly been a lot of recreations. For the deletion logs, click on:
- and I think there have been other variants. Jayjg gave his reasons in discussion with Kygora at User talk:Jayjg#My Personal Page,. The history of this article (and all the others listed at the MfD), with continual re-creation in defiance of AfDs and DRV, a string of SPAs including sockpuppetry, and repeated moving of userspace drafts back to mainspace, makes it seem that there is an orchestrated campaign going on, probably because their first album is coming out this month.
- There is another userspace version at User:Vision07/Falling in reverse. Whatever happens we do not need multiple versions lying around. Suggestion: pick one of these two and delete the other, move the chosen one to the Incubator, move-protect it there to prevent any more attempts to slide it back into mainspace, and let its supporters develop it there until the band can really meet WP:BAND (which may be some way off as their first album is not out yet). Then they can come back to DRV, but they should understand that coming back every other week will not be looked on kindly.
- I have notified Jayjg of this DRV. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by deleting admin. This article was first deleted in June 2009. Since then, it has been recreated 7 times as Falling in Reverse, 5 times as Falling in reverse, 5 times as Falling In Reverse (Band), 5 times as Falling In Reverse (band), once as Falling In Reverse (From Behind These Walls). So I stand corrected - it has actually been recreated 23 times in mainspace alone, not to mention all the personal copies, article incubators, etc. As JohnCD points out, there have been a long string of WP:SPA accounts determined to ensure that this article should exist, without addressing the underlying issue that it still fails WP:BAND. Most recently it was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 13#Falling In Reverse, where it was determined that the sources in the article were just press releases/promotional material, and not sufficient to confer notability. On June 28 it was proposed to move it into mainspace again, despite the fact that the sourcing issue had not been addressed. The relentless promotion of this band on Wikipedia has been nearly unprecedented, in my experience.
Furthermore, although User:Kygora has stated on my Talk: page that he is not a member of the band, but in the previous DRV he apparently was identified by others, and identified himself, as Mike Horiuchi, who plays bass guitar for the band. It is clear to me that him storing a copy of this article on Wikipedia is not a good thing. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a large number of recreations. Regarding the conflict of interest issue, it seems that "Mika Horiuchi. Kygora" was misread as "Mika Horiuchi Kygora" by Yoenit. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., I think I now understand what was written, though it's still confusing, and I retract that part of the statement. And yes, that's a very large number of recreations. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is a high number of recreations, which is why i made this one in the Userspace and have been watching the mainspace for more recreations in which i move to the userspace of the person who put it into the mainspace which is how:User:Vision07/Falling in reverse this came in to existance. the one made by User:Vision07 was poorly made compared to my User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse which was actually getting close to meeting the requirements of WP:BAND which i realize i was wrong before so i kept it in the Userspace instead of pushing it into the mainspace. So i would like to have User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse restored, and User:Vision07/Falling in reverse can be deleted for being so poorly written. i am sure this was really confusing to read cuz i am really tired. --Kygora 08:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if someone emailed you the content of the userspace draft and you maintained it on your computer until it meets notability guidelines?--v/r - TP 02:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer it to be in my Userspace so that others can see and edit it too. What is the Big deal about it beingin my Userspace? is it going to Kill Wikipedia? are we all gonna be negatively affected by it? and dont say because one already exists in someone elses userspace because if you look at the dates mine was made first.. and i was the one who moved the other from mainspace to userspace because it didnt meet WP:BAND yet, jayjig claims i tried to sneak it back into the mainspace when i didnt. i merely put it there and when they removed it i did a DRV and they showed me that it still didnt meet WP:BAND which i accepted. so i put it in my Userspace so that i didnt have to completely rewrite it when the band does me WP:BAND, this article was doing absolutely no harm being in my userspace.--Kygora 04:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that many people see that as an attempt to keep a WP:FAKEARTICLE alive.--v/r - TP 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the exceptional number of recreations and attempts to move into article space, a line should be drawn somewhere. Any of the following seems okay to me: restore and give Kygora (and anyone else) a last-last chance, move-protect a single working copy somewhere (as suggested by JohnCD), or keep deleted and email a copy to Kygora for work offline. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore: Restoration would seem to me the appropriate action with a user space being an entirely appropriate place for such a draft. Any problematic recreations or moves to main space would seem to me best dealt with by moves back to user spaces. Deletion of user space drafts seems to be extremely and unneccesarily harsh. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- How many user space copies are required? We already have User:Vision07/Falling in reverse and User:GroundZ3R0 002/Sandbox 3. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would there be a limit, Jayjg? — Personally, I have in my userspace a draft article about Marianne von Willemer. She's a shameful redlink on the English Wikipedia, even though she's been a good article on de.wiki for years. But I've been "working" on my draft article for over a year now (and by "working" on it, I mean, mostly ignoring it). Should the fact that I have a draft article about her prevent, say, Flatscan from working on an article about her in his userspace? Is there any reason why several editors can't work on the same thing, each in their own userspace?
If there is any such reason, then we should immediately begin removing all userspace drafts and placing them in the article incubator to prevent duplication.—S Marshall T/C 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason of policy but where, as here, three authors are all actively working on the same article, it would seem sensible and collegial for them to work together rather than compete; and having the draft in the incubator would help avoid any danger of ownership issues. A single draft would also be easier to keep an eye on and move-protect, in view of what seems an unusually persistent promotion campaign for a band which has yet to produce its first album. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to JohnCD's cogent points above, I think that once an article has been re-created in mainspace 23 times, we have to evaluate whether the normal processes (e.g. allowing people to keep various copies in their userspace) are appropriate any more, particularly when the account arguing to keep the mainspace copy is a WP:SPA. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Because there seems to be no verifiable prospect of the band becoming notable any time soon, this looks like content moved to user space so as to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy, and thus deleteable per G4. Sandstein 09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You sir must not do any research. at all. this band is signed to a major record label, soon to release their first album. as soon as that album hits the charts, or a single from the album hits the charts, or they release a second album, than BAMN they aare notable enough to have a wikipedia page in the mainspace. so you're vote has been overruled. good luck in learning how to research. and you "G4" nonsense is overrulled by "G4" itself: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement." --Kygora 11:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I am not clear why User:Kygora's version has been deleted rather than User:Vision07's or User:GroundZ3R0_002s - is this on the grounds of the quality of the version? I think the suggestion (above by JohnCD ) of having one in the incubator is a good one but I can't see this should preclude userspace drafts and the restoration of Kyogora's. Should someone - should I - just start an incubator one and then ask the other editors to work on that? (As an aside it might be that the band are notable and that this has led to lots of people to want to write about it - a quick look indicates to me that this might be the case with, for example, them being played on Daniel P. Carter's show on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0128hcg) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Just thought I'd chime in. As for User:Vision07's version, it is regrettably not proper quality for wikipedia (first party sources, unreliable sources, bare url sources, poorly written, non-neutral POV, too focused on ETF). This means that this article should have no future on the mainspace. Having said that, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to delete a User sub page. Any user can have them and not even use them. That is their prerogative. As for mine (GroundZ3R0) and Kyorga's versions, I have not seen Kyorga's and therefore cannot attest to it's quality. I request to see some version of his article however that is possible. My article has every known source I can find on the internet for FIR (every reliable, third party source, that is), is well written, perfectly sourced, and perfectly formatted. I see no errors in mine whatsoever. Therefore, I propose that Kyorga and I (I've already gone through Vision07's for useful sources and info) collaborate and combine our articles to create a hopefully definitive version for when the band meets WP:BAND. If no reasonable combination is possible, we can work on our respective articles separately. GroundZ3R0 002 19:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose, that, you listen to ^^^this guy! he has a great Idea. for both our versions are of high quality but in need of tune up. I promise, and i believe that User:GroundZero 002 would as well, that we will not move it into the mainspace without it being approved by Wikipedian Admins. --Kygora 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. We will get approval from Jayjg because he is the admin who has deleted most of the past renditions of this article. Is that agreeable? And is there another way to view your article Kygora? I haven't seen it yet since it was deleted before I could see it. GroundZ3R0 002 22:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cache expired, can any admins out there send me an offline version please? --Kygora 22:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just one reason why the article has been so problematic. You say your version is "perfectly sourced". Yet it cites AltPress eleven times, more than any other source, and the Deletion review was quite clear that AltPress was not an appropriate source. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually twelve times haha. But I see no reason why AltPress is unacceptable, and I disagree with the reasons presented in the deletion review. Perhaps a third opinion by a neutral admin? GroundZ3R0 002 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move all users' drafts to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Falling in Reverse – In that way, we avoid any potential WP:OWN issues, and we have multiple editors who are able to work together (as opposed to against each other) to help bring the article up to appropriate standards for inclusion. –MuZemike 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move all users' drafts to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Falling in Reverse per MuZemike. Because the band is signed to a major label, it will likely become notable in the future. MuZemike's suggestion is a reasonable compromise to lessen the tension and to avoid duplication of work. It is better for the users to be working together on the same draft than on separate ones. Cunard (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
