- Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I had the approval of the admin who originally salted the article (David Gerard), but it was nonetheless speedily deleted for rule Db-G4 which the article did not break, as it was significantly different from both prior deletions. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I salted one of the previous incarnations. Allow draft, with prospect of recreation as an article - DRV use case 3: new information since deletion - that is, Dr-Bracket (and I) dredged up some RS coverage. Certainly it should be allowed to exist as a draft - the spammy deleted versions were notably RS-free, and if you look, you'll see this one isn't. It'll be a bit of a spam magnet, but not more than the rest of our our cryptocurrency-related coverage is, and there's a pile of editors of late working to keep this area up to RS standard - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion part of the cleanup was me removing several incarnations of this topic from draft and userspace. I don't recall exactly how many as I also sought deletion on many other crypto pages. I do remember there were different capitalizations. This is a DS area full of promotion and undisclosed COI. I suggest finding a more useful topic. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no COI with Tron (never owned any, don't know anyone personally who owns any), and had that in some of the talk pages that were getting moved around. I decided to create this article because I knew I could fairly, and I knew I could fully meet WP:GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok fair enough. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted content was not the typical promotional dreck that used to permeate this topic area - this one was a legitimate attempt to write an encyclopedia article. MER-C 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation as a draft per David Gerard. I, or some other admin, can slap ECP on it to keep the spam out if needed. MER-C 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn WP:G4. I can think of many reasons why this is not an article we want, but WP:CSD lays out very specific requirements and it's one of the few places where I don't think WP:IAR should apply. G4 requires that the versions be substantially identical. If I'm following the history properly, the two versions in question are:
- 1 December 2018, at 08:34 by BrownHairedGirl
- 13 December 2018, at 04:39 by Robert McClenon
- These clearly do not meet the substantially identical requirement. WP:ECP does, however, seem like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion following deletion discussion and create-protection following repeated re-creation. However:
- Comment – This Deletion Review is actually being used as the proper forum for a review of the create-protection (salting) of the title. I Oppose general lifting of the create-protection in article space. I also Oppose permitting creation of the page in draft space while it is create-protected in article space. It is NOT useful to permit creation of a page in draft space that cannot be accepted into article space. If the page exists in draft space but is blocked out of article space, it will be repeatedly and tendentiously resubmitted by spammers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is quite definitely different content, with actual sources. It's not a mainspace-ready article yet - but it's the precise sort of thing that, with proper review, warrants unsalting of a deservedly-salted article topic. I fully appreciate spammer-weariness ... but did you actually compare the old text to the new text, or did you just go by the topic? - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As noted below, I can't compare the old text with the new text, and I am very tired of the same topics being spammed over and over again. Is User:David Gerard saying that I just have to ignore the spammers because their old crud has been hidden from me and their new crud is still there? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I really don't get how you read that from what I wrote. The old text was a pile of bad refs and primary refs, and the text the person bringing the DRV is talking about is based on RS refs. You seem to be arguing vociferously about the merits of text that you now admit you've literally not read - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Dr-Bracket – When a new account shows up and starts submitting in a contentious area, many of us are inclined to suspect conflict of interest and sockpuppetry. You say that you have no special interest in Tron, but we had to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – However, I do not object to downgrading the create-protection in both article space and draft space to ECP, which will still provide reasonable protection against spamming. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By the way, how is a nominator to know whether a page is substantially identical to a deleted page if they can't see the deleted page? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the nominator is not an admin, they can't, at least not officially. Unofficially, deleted pages are often still visible on various mirrors, Deletionpedia, search engine caches, etc. In any case, the admin who services the nomination should be checking. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Roy. Note: I've not been able to compare these two, but no one seems to be claiming the *are* substantially identical and in fact there seems to be general agreement that this one has much better sources. That's more than enough to overcome a G4. So this needs to be overturned unless we are going to rely on IAR (or someone claims that this is in fact basically the same article). Hobit (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It appears that the issue has become whether the create protection should be downgraded in both draft space and article space from admin protected to extended-confirmed protected. I concur with changing the level of create protection to ECP, which will allow an established editor to create a draft and to submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we ECP draft space? Hobit (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can almost guarantee if this stays in draft space without some sort of protection, it will turn into a pile of crap. Dr-Bracket (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest giving it a chance first, but I don't know the area as well as you do. Hobit (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It has already been given its chances. We know that spammers want to put crud into article space, and that if article space is protected, they will try to put it into draft space and submit it. If draft space isn't protected, then the usual practice is to submit the crud repeatedly from draft space, requiring the reviewers to reject it repeatedly. (Reject was meant to deal with repeated resubmissions. It works against clueless users. It doesn't work against spammers, who use a patented bean-removing tool.) Once the spammers show up, giving another chance is a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I mostly agree with you - but I'm not here to spam; I've presented article that does it the right way. The whole point of salting is getting the approval of the admin who salted it, as a way curb spammers from ever reaching here. And so I did; this is probably the best draft we'll ever see, in regards to it actually having someone committed to making it follow GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: unlikely to develop into a viable article, so best kept deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a question - can you guys actually see the draft I created (as opposed to the previously hideous ones), or is this just based off assumptions? I think that might explain a lot. Dr-Bracket (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tempundeleted this, so that should resolve that issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
