- Base58 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Hello, I created Base58, but it has been (speedy) deleted. The original G4 comment was "This applies to sufficiently identical copies", but I have not seen the previous article at all. I also did not have any contact on forehand with the previous creator(s). So how can it be identical copies? I already asked the one who deleted the page to undelete it. He even thinks there should be an Base58 article, but the other artcle was not good enough. Please undelete the page and let me/us improve it further. --FlippyFlink (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and trout. This is about as bogus a WP:CSD as they come. WP:G4 says,
It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version . I've tempundeleted this so people can see for themselves. None of the text is the same. None of the references are the same. I'm as rabidly anti bitcoin-spam as anybody, but that doesn't mean we get to play WP:IAR with speedy deletions. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, sending this to AfD sounds like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say "the other article was not good enough". Quite the contrary, I said that the AFD said that Base58 was not a sufficiently notable topic for an article. If there is community consensus that a topic is not notable, then creating a new article on that topic isn't the solution to the problem. --B (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At DRV, we generally say that if an article cites plausible sources that weren't considered at AfD, then that inoculates it against G4.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD: CSD G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". This was different. Notability is a concern, so send it back to AfD. (Also, User:Cryptic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base58 is not nominated for review here (only the G4 is), so should it be tagged?) —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and trout. The major concern at the previous AfD was unreliable sources. These sources are totally different (not one is reused from the previous version) and the IETF and WWWC look pretty reliable to me. Therefore this was not a valid G4, period. An AfD does not bar future creations on the same topic, unless the topic is salted. Even then a draft may usually be created, and then the drafter may point at the draft in a DRV discussion to request unsalting. New ore different sources are a valid reason to recreate. None of which establishes the notability of the topic, of course, and the arguments against that at the previous AfD have some value. Any editor who think this is still not notable may start a new AfD. I would not favor an automatic opening of an AfD -- let soemoen who thinks this isn't notable do a proper WP:BEFORE and write up a useful nomination astatement rather than a procedural nom. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I presume I am the 'trout' you speak of. I did not describe this as "sufficiently identical", that's just what the template adds automatically. But the article is still effectively identical, it describes a topic whose only notability relies on Bitcoin. The very recent AfD decided that this was inadequate notability and that remains the case. The use now of the W3C as a reference is a very slight reference and conveys no substantial notability. It even describes this within that reference as "base58Bitcoin". Now if wikipedia wants to change its mind and decide that Bitcoin and its use of base58 is notable after all, then fine, keep this article. But that's still all that this article is relying on and only very recently it was decided that wasn't enough. Denzil1963 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Denzil1963 "sufficiently identical" is the wording not just of the template but of the CSD. By tagging for G4 you are implicitly asserting that the version tagged is "sufficiently identical" to the version deleted by AfD. Also, any time you use a template you are responsible for its wording just as if you had typed every word individually. An AfD, particularly one that does not salt the article name, never decides once and for all that a topic is non-notable. The decision is always based in part on the currently available sources, and in effect is limited to the sources then in the article, plus any discussed in the AfD. New or additional plausible sources, especially by a different good faith editor (as opposed to a spam-pushing SPA) is normally a valid ground to recreate, and G4 should not then apply. That is my view and i think it has consensus here at DRV at least. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Denzil1963, I can see this was just a good-faith misunderstanding of how G4 works, so no, the trout doesn't apply to you. It mostly applies to the admin who actually deleted it. It's the admin's job to double-check that the nomination is correct, not just click the button to make it happen.
- I can also see that you're a new user; I'm sorry that your earliest interactions with wikipedia got you ensnared in a controversy, and apologize if my initial reaction was rather brusque. Might I suggest that as a new user, nominating articles for speedy deletion is probably not the best place to get your feet wet. WP:CSD is one of the places where we have traditionally employed a very literal interpretation and it can take a bit of experience to understand how it works.
- I suspect you may also not be familiar with WP:TROUT, which you should read, especially the bit about it being humorous. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Not a great speedy delete candidate. Wm335td (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per S Marshall; give FlippyFink a chance to expand the article rather than send it immediately to AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as deleted per this AfD There's no reason to send this back to AfD since the decision to delete the article has already been made before. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Such decisions are never final, P,TO 19104. New information and/or new sources, not previously considered, can cause the consensus to change. In any case what I and some others are suggesting is not automatically swending it back to AfD, but simply overturning the speedy deletion, and allowing other editors toi nominate it for a new AfD if they think fit. Another possible option is restoring it to Draft space for development. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
