- Ryan-Zico Black (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I want to challenge the speedy deletion of this article because G4 should not have applied. I understand admins have wide discretion and can interpret speedy criteria idiosyncratically. That's fine. But here, deleting admin JamesBWatson has dispensed with the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved" wording altogether and substituted his own alternative: "essentially similar", which – as well as being woolly and arbitrary – has a completely different meaning! Anyway, I think my substantially-lengthened and improved new article did address the reason for deletion (WP:GNG failure) by including several additional sources from national newspapers. [1] [2] Also, I added a credible suggestion that the player appeared for Northern Ireland at B international level. Since the deletion in July 2013, there's been continuing non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources: [3] [4] The article could be expanded further with sources supplied at the first deletion discussion, at which it was kept. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Eight new sources including from national newspapers like the Sunday People, Independent and Daily Mirror means there's no way that this is "sufficiently identical and unimproved". OK they may still not be enough to establish notability but that's not for an individual admin to decide that's for an AfD to decide. I also note that even without the extra sources this still isn't "sufficiently identical" as it provides entirely new information such as the information on an international career. Again this may not be enough to meet our notability standards but again that's not for an individual admin to decide. Dpmuk (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The deleting admin has not understood WP:CSD#G4 which states that the criterion "... excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version...". It is nowhere in the criterion that the revamped article "... goes anywhere towards addressing the reasons advanced in the deletion discussion."[5] The introduction to WP:CSD says the "criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion ... They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." Differences of approach to G4 have been discussed regularly at WT:CSD, most recently here, which gives helpful links to earlier discussions. As it happens I proposed a broadening of the G4 criterion and this met substantial opposition here. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was interested to see the discussions on this issue linked above, which I had not seen before. One of the main points which emerges from those discussions, and others which I found by following links from them, is that there is considerable variation of opinion as to how CSD G4 should be used, with a lack of consensus on the questions involved. The wording of CSD G4 is very unsatisfactory. What is "sufficiently" identical? Sufficient for what? The purpose of speedy deletion G4 is to avoid having a page discussed, deleted, restored, and taken back to a new deletion discussion where exactly the same arguments are likely to be used, wasting everybody's time. That being so, the only logical interpretation of "sufficiently identical" is "sufficiently identical for the purpose of deciding whether the dame deletion arguments apply". However, if there is a consensus that this is not how to interpret the criterion, and that any re-created article which is not almost word for word the same as the previous one has to go back to another AfD, even if it does not address any of the reason given for deletion, then so be it. I really have no personal opinion at all as to whether this article is suitable, and I will accept whatever result emerges. (Incidentally, it is a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote to say that I dispensed with the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved" wording altogether and substituted [my] own alternative: "essentially similar". I did not substitute one set of words for the other, I simply used the words quoted in the course of describing how I attempted to apply the wording of the criterion, which is not at all the same as "substituting" one set of words for another.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not unknown for a DRV contain quite a wide variety of contradicting opinion statements on the exact definition of G4. I feel that it would be unwise of us to set concrete criteria for what is, and is not, a G4, because the more narrowly we constrain our administrators on this the more easily the system is gamed by bad faith contributors. But equally, DRV tends to interpret the speedy deletion criteria rather narrowly and where there's doubt, prefers a full discussion. A very strict reading of G4 would imply that a substantial rewrite of previously-deleted text would be sufficient to require a fresh discussion, but I don't like to read it that strictly because it creates an open goal for marketers. As is not uncommon at DRV, we have to weigh a certain amount of tension between competing attitudes.
In my personal opinion one of the bright lines around G4 is sources. When a re-creation introduces new sources that the previous discussion did not consider, then I would see that as presuming a fresh discussion, unless the new sources were blatantly unreliable and/or inadequate.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the wording of G4 is indeed very unsatisfactory and so I was too harsh in saying you had not understood the criterion. A particular problem is that the phrases "substantially identical" and "sufficiently identical" are both used with the former seeming to claim priority over the latter. This causes puzzlement and confusion. Thincat (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is clearly considerable doubt about how to interpret CSD G4 in this situation. Having thought about it carefully, I have decided that, in a case where there is so much uncertainty, the best thing is to restore the article, and allow the person who nominated it for speedy deletion (or anyone else) to take it to another AfD if they wish to. I have, accordingly, restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
