- Sacred Microdistillery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2#Sacred Microdistillery. I discussed the "No consensus to take any action" close with Sandstein. I am creating a more succinct deletion review after Sandstein wrote "there was not so much disagreement as general confusion as to what happened and why - perhaps also because of your walls of text".
In 2010, Sacred Microdistillery was restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery. Since deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, Deb's 2021 speedy deletion under WP:G11 was incorrect.
Deb restored one revision of the deleted article to draft. I used that revision as the basis to add more sources to establish notability before restoring the article to mainspace at Sacred Spirits. The other revisions of Sacred Microdistillery, which have contributions by other editors, remain deleted. The current state violates Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Overturn the speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I doubt that anyone can be expected to make a judgement call on this without reading the previous discussion. Deb (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which really isn't that big of an issue, either - per my comments in that discussion, what we really need is for an uninvolved admin or two to come in and take a look at the history. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete the history, unless there is a clear precise reason not to. If any editor authoring Sacred Microdistillery even read the old article, then every author of the old article should be in the attribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the original DRV, there are G11 issues. Unfortunately, this is not a straightforward request. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we have a non-G11 article in place now, why would having G11 revisions in the history pose a problem such that we would want to keep those revisions deleted? G10 or G12 I could understand, but I'm not feeling the insurmountable tragedy if an old G11 revision exists in history. Am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, the history of this thing along with the request is actually rather confusing especially to someone like myself who can't view exactly what the heck happened here. I don't really have any issue with restoring G11'd material to an article history - my concern comes from the fact this was deleted twice, DRV'd, et cetera, and wanting to make sure this isn't a request to undelete material which should remain deleted and providing copyright attribution through a dummy edit. Though since another uninvolved editor has tagged with this an advertisement tag in the meantime and NORG may not be met, maybe we should just see if it survives a fresh AfD? SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has explained why the article reads like an advertisement or is non-notable. I do not think the article reads like an advertisement. I do not think the article has notability concerns. I provided a list of three book sources at the previous deletion review that strongly establish notability. Notability concerns can be discussed at AfD. Advertisement concerns can be discussed on the article's talk page and through regular editing of the article. This DRV should be focused on evaluating whether the speedy deletion under WP:G11 was correct. My view is that it is incorrect because the deleted revisions were not "exclusively promotional" and did not "need to be fundamentally rewritten", and a 2010 deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps I should clarify how I see the course of events:
- I deleted the article as G11, and I don't accept that there was anything wrong with that deletion.
- Cunard asked about the version he had produced in 2010 and questioned whether it was promotional.
- I checked the 2010 version - the only half-decent version I could find, and restored this version only to draft, in order that he could look at it and see if he could find material in it that could be used as a basis for a new article.
- Cunard made some amendments and moved the draft to article space, something I would not have done under the circumstances (the article having been created several times under different names and been the subject of deletion discussions).
- I believe two things are being confused here:
- Whether the article met the criteria for G11. This is where "deletion review" comes in. If the article didn't meet the criteria, then all versions subsequent to 2010 should also be restored, though presumably the later, more promotional versions would then be reverted.
- Whether all versions that preceded Cunard's 2010 version should be restored. This is actually a request to restore other articles that were deleted, one as a result of this deletion discussion, a deletion that was later endorsed, and Sacred microdistillery, which was deleted in 2010 by User:Accounting4Taste with the summary "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion", referring to that same discussion. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We don’t need to call the G11 incorrect to call for undeletion. G11, like most speedy criteria, is for things for which there is no conceivable discussion. Now that someone wants to discuss it, undelete it and allow the discussion, at AfD if someone thinks deletion is required. Cunard are more than good enough standing to be given this undeletion on request. It should be granted near automatically, and followed up by AfD or WP:REVDEL if required.
- It just so happens to be now at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Spirits. Let it all play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
