- Mister Saint Laurent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Admin asked for review Larsonrick25 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears a mistake was made by deleting the Mister Saint Laurent entry. The page deleted was not a recreation of the pulled page from 2008, but was mistakenly assumed as such. I've helped monitor the page the last few years as there'd been some controversy, but it was ultimately decided by the appropriate Wikipedia authority figures that the new page was appropriate and should remain. So it would be a mistake to pull the page based on a different entry that was pulled five years ago. That entry was inappropriately created by the subject. Independent editors years later created a properly sourced page, which is the one mistakenly deleted this week. There had already been a discussion over whether to delete the page and the consensus was to keep it. I think the admin was just doing some routine house keeping and mistakenly assumed it was the same page from 2008. I talked to the admin and he told me to start a talk here. Sorry if I don't have this whole process correct. If there's already been a discussion and it's decided a page should not be deleted, I don't think it should suddenly vanish out of the blue years later. I think the admin simply made an error and once the facts are considered, I believe the page should be restored. I think it was a simple miscommunication.
- "but it was ultimately decided by the appropriate Wikipedia authority figures that the new page was appropriate and should remain" - can you link to such a discussion? (Note we don't decide on permanent inclusion or exclusion anywhere). "There had already been a discussion over whether to delete the page and the consensus was to keep it." - same question where is that discussion? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been deleted, so I have no way of accessing the talk page from it. The admin did a G4 speedy deletion of the page ("A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[3] 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.").
But the page was not sufficiently identical and was not unimproved. The page was completely different from the 2008 deleted page and vastly improved. It was simply a housekeeping error on the part of the admin. He deleted the page without warning simply because he noticed there had been a deleted article five years earlier with the same name. Even a quick examination of the two articles would show the new article was not identical in any way, was tremendously improved, and had existed for years with proper citations and any discussion of deletion was ultimately denied. This page did not qualify for a G4 speedy deletion nor was there any reason for any deletion whatsoever.
The admin had no previous history with this article and there had been no recent issue calling for admin intervention. It appears the admin was simply in good faith looking to help clean up Wikipedia, but with over 100,000 edits, he's only human and simply made a mistake with this deletion. When the mistake was brought to his attention, it was clear he wasn't familiar with the article at all and asked for there to be further discussion here.
If the article were to be temporarily restored, we'd be able to compare it to the 2008 article as well as look at its talk page. You will see clearly this deletion was a mistake, not to mention it did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The article was not substantially identical to the deleted version, therefore it is to be excluded from G4 speedy deletion according to Wikipedia policy.
I'd be happy to help clarify any further confusion, but I'm unable to answer your questions at this point as the page was removed without warning and I have no access to the talk page. Like I said, even a brief overview of the article if it were temporarily restored would show it was not the same article deleted in 2008. The admin simply made an honest mistake and it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating the same argument time and time again does not make it any more persuasive. I got your contention that it's not valid as a G4 the first time, your repeating it several times again isn't needed, I'm interested in your other assertions, which are extremely vague. As discussions about deletion etc. don't occur on the talk page, I can't see the significance in the talk page not being available should affect your ability to point me to those discussions. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to this process and doing my best to contribute to the community. I sincerely apologize if my lack of experience has agitated you in any way. There was a Mister Saint Laurent page that was correctly deleted in 2008. It was poorly sourced and appeared to be biased so it was removed. Later on, a completely different, correctly sourced and unbiased article was created. There had been some discussion on the talk page as to whether the subject was notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. The consensus was that the subject was notable and it never went any further than that. Those discussions were on the talk page. If those discussions should have taken place elsewhere, so be it, but they did not and I was not involved in those discussions, was simply pointing out that the consensus on the page was that the new article, unlike the old article, was proper and should remain.
Please don't shoot the messenger. I noticed a page had been mistakenly deleted. I contacted the admin and the admin asked that it be addressed here. I apologize again if I've made in mistakes in protocol. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've temp restored the article and its talk page. I see no evidence of a discussion there concluding this individual is notable—if anything, rather the opposite—and it wouldn't be binding anyway. —Cryptic 14:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize previous decisions are not necessarily binding, but believe strongly an assessment of the facts would determine the 2010 article was sufficiently different and vastly improved from the 2008 article and a G4 delete was made in error. Unfortunately even the 2010 article was the target of a lot of trolling and vandalism for a while. However, if you look at the edit history of the 2010 article, you will see on July 10, 2012 that administrator StephenBuxton, a member of Wikipedia's Counter-Vandalism Unit came to the following conclusion: "CSD Declined - notability asserted and referenced in article." The vandalism ceased after his decision and there had been no issues since. So until the sudden deletion of the article the other day, which came without warning and clearly was a mistake under the G4 criteria, the last time an admin looked into the matter, they concluded notability had been asserted and they declined to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The article was deleted (notability) after a 2008 AFD, recreated two years later in 2010 and given PROD (notability) in 2013 and then deleted by WP:CSD#G4. Even the expired PROD could have been overturned on request but not the speedy. G4 is excluded for "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Is the newly-deleted version here substantially identical to this? For a start it has eight references rather than four. The way G4 is sometimes handled seems utterly bizarre. Notability concerns should be handled at AFD. Thincat (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is the next step? There is no question he is notable. He co-hosts MLW Radio with wrestling legend Konnan, which is one of the most popular and well known wrestling shows there is, with thousands and thousands of listeners. Not to mention he's been notable enough to have cover stories written about him in major international publications (which is how I discovered him). Larsonrick25 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question here at DRV is not (primarily) whether the individual is notable but whether the speedy deletion was carried out within policy. In my view it quite definitely was not. If the deletion is overturned a quite separate matter will then be whether the article should be improved or sent to "Articles for Deletion". You were quite right to point out the "mistaken" deletion but this is not the time or place to discuss notability. Very many people unfamiliar with DRV find this way of deciding things difficult to take on board. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you requested that it should be taken to DRV[1] but it would indeed have been better if you had been told that this had actually occurred. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm new to the politics and protocols of Wiki. Doing my best to try to do the right thing. Could barely figure out how to do the DRV thing. Apologies to the admin for not making a notice. Larsonrick25 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem! GiantSnowman 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as deleting admin - I am fine with the article being restored and then taken back to AFD, though I stand by my use of G4 as I believe the articles were similar enough to be eligible. GiantSnowman 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
