Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This should be at DRV. AFD cannot review a G4 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Duncan (martial arts)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Duncan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Ron_Duncan

Recreated, deleted, needs second article debate as page was userfied, moved to mainspace and deleted CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per a suggestion by Thincat, I am recreating an article to put it on AFD so that it may be considered for main space Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1. The previous article was deleted with one keep vote and two weak deletes (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Duncan). A current version of the article for mainspace is available here User:CrazyAces489/Ron_Duncan or in the history of Ronald Duncan. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't really see the point of this exercise. The new article could simply be posted under the title, but I would advise revising it a bit first as it looks rather promotional in wording (yes, things can be promo even though the subject is deceased). I've not checked the references, and know very little about martial arts. The page under this title doesn't need a second debate here when there is nothing in the page to debate. The new draft is not eligible for debate here as this is Articles for Deletion, not Miscellany for Deletion. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment can someone undelete this article and talk page so that people can see the article to make an assessment. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do that, the article had multiple contributors, but the article there was a cut and paste from somewhere causing a copyright issue. And the correct venue for reviewing a deleted article is DRV. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlease do not accuse me of putting together a cut and paste job unless you can find the alleged source of it. There is no way that occurred as the article. 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You cut and paste the whole article, the original article in your userspace has more editors than just you. Those users as per the link given licensed the text requiring attribution, that's where the problem arises. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creating User:CrazyAces489/Shiina2 has the same problem the history and attribution for the other contributors is all lost. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - Wrong Venue if CrazyAces489 wishes to challenge the G4 deletion of the article, then it needs to go to DRV not AFD. The article was deleted as a G4 deletion, since the last AFD deleted it and the DRV endorsed the outcome, CrazyAces489 decided not to bother with the consensus of either and just cherry picked one comment from the DRV regarding recreate and AFD. He did then proceeded to do the first part, recreating this at the new title a month or so ago, but didn't do the second part until it was pointed out to him. An admin must have noticed and G4 deleted it yesterday (20 Dec) at which point CrazyAces created a blank page to AFD. The version previously userfied should be bought up to scratch (Remove all the cites to trivial mentions, blogs, vanity press and other unacceptable sources) then bought back to DRV. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe AFD deleted it a while ago with what I saw to be a weak majority. The DRV put forth a suggestion to recreate the article and go through the DRV process. I would ask 86, that you use a better tone, as you are cominig off very rude to me. I am only trying to create good articles of individuals within the martial arts community. Am I a great at this? No, but I am learning this as the process goes along. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main issue for the DRV decline is the overwhelming number of questionable sources which makes the article untenable - hard to find notability in a sea of s... Two further creations of CrazyAces489 are currently up in AfD debate Kiyoshi Shiina and Jerome Mackey with essentially the same problem. Instead of addressing or understanding the issue we see an attempt to end run.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's very rude to ignore community consensus. Your statements are ultimately disingenuous, DRV is not and I'm sure you full well know a request for ideas where you get to decide which of them to implement. And even then as is factually quite clear you didn't follow even that "suggestion" since you restored it over a month ago without bothering to relist. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86, I am doing so now. If you would like to help me I am fine with it. I am discovering more of wikipedia as I edit. I am no wiki genius. Please let me refer you to WP:NICE and Wikipedia:Harassment. I see your edit history since November 28 is on my userpages of articles I have tried to fix as well as places I edit. I do wonder where your interest in my artciles come from. Especially new articles like Latoya Hanson Also where is the source of the copyright issue. I see you ignored my questioning of your accusation. [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing so now, over a month later, when it's pointed out to you that you've ignore the DRV consensus, you'll have to excuse my cynicism. Reviewing an editors contributions is quite reasonable, not sure why you'd think differently, indeed you seem to have done exactly the same to me here. The user page of the article you refer to is the userfied version of this one, where I've done the terribly harassing thing of improve the citations (and have gradually been doing so since it since october). In reality I saw that article at DRV and thought I'd try an help out a little on the cites on the userfied copy. Latoya Hanson suffers the same issue your other articles do, cites to trivial mentions and poor citation style. Now I could have just AFDd it, or changed it to a redirect, but instead I noted the notability issue and improved the citation style, if you feel harassed by such actions then I guess you have a very different idea to me about what harassment is. I could of course have seen the other articles at AFD and gone and !voted delete, again how terribly harassing of me not to have done so. You seem to be trying to construct a case of harassment out of me pointing out your lack of respect for the consensus reached at DRV, this seems a fairly transparent attempt to fling mud. I linked the relevant details re the copyright issue when stated above, WP:CWW contributions to wikipedia are subject to a license which requires attribution, copying and pasting a whole article loses that attribution so is in breach of the license. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86, You stated that I am copy and pasting. Again, I am asking you to please show me direct links of where the copy and pasting is occurring. From what website or websites. If you vote to delete an article I wrote. I don't care. That is your opinion and that is fine. The point of a userfied article though is for the user to use. If you think it's poor citations. That is your opinion. I don't go onto your userfied articles at all. A large majority of your edits since october 18 have been into places I have been to or things I have authored. This is borderline WP:HOUND. I ask that you stop following me around. I don't know who you are and find this behavior and your general tone to me annoying. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - Wrong Venue This is a pointless effort and not sure why it was attempted. CrazyAces489 is certainly aware of the DRV process having used it before. The entry should be deleted until resolved. Frankly the original AfD was long enough before that a repost would most likely be AfD rather than PROD'd.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rehse, What is the best process. I read in one of the DRV's that going through there wasn't the best venue. I saw repeated claims to restart the article to go through the AFD process. So which is the best way after an article has been recommended for deletion? AFD or DRV? CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.