Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 May 28
2019 May 30 >

29 May 2019[edit]

  • Vivacious (drag queen) – Endorse. It's unusual for AfD to require deleting the history under a redirect, but that's what they did, and people here are OK with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vivacious (drag queen) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no reason to delete the entire article history. I am not looking to overturn the AfD result, but seek to have the article's history restored for possible future expansion. I acknowledge, there is an IP editor/sockpuppet who keeps turning redirects into articles after AfD discussions, but we should keep the article history and simply protect the page from being turned into an article by the IP editor or others. There were plenty of keep votes in the AfD discussion, and the problematic editor has been blocked from creating new pages. I'm asking to have the article history restored, but keep the page protected as a redirect. The closing/deleting admin does not wish to comply. See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Vivacious. (Sorry for going about this the wrong way initially, I was just seeking help from editors who I knew could point me in the right direction. Thanks!) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I'm satisfied the discussion's "delete and redirect" is appropriate, and I don't see any problem with the closing admin's refusal to restore the history. However, I wouldn't have any problem restoring the most recent version to userspace, though I suspect this person faces barriers to becoming notable in the Wikipedia-sense. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, yeah I'm just asking for the markup and I'm willing to have copied into the draft space or whatever. I didn't think this would be a controversial ask. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was a perfectly good reading of the discussion, and the nominator has given no policy-based reason for overturning that close. (He says "I am not looking to overturn the AfD result", but that makes no sense at all: the AfD result was deletion, and the nominator wishes to have the deletion reversed, so that is precisely overturning the AfD result.) The suggestion of "restoring the most recent version to userspace" is out of the question, because restoring one version without the editing history would infringe copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can't find any serious discussion of sources in the AfD, and RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6) has multiple mentions of this person but way short of enough to justify a spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If/when Vivacious becomes notable if the created article about them uses the old version as a basis then by all means let's restore the history. But several !voters were quite clear that they thought it should be delete and then redirect, not just a redirect which is not the norm in my experience even for AfDs that end up being redirected (e.g. this recent one I participated in). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia – Deleted, but recreation permitted. DRV is of the view that AfD failed to recognize and act on the copyright violations present throughout the article. These have now been addressed by RoySmith's deletions. Apart from that, DRV does not overturn AfD's conclusion to keep the article. This means that it can, in theory, be restored or recreated if somebody (presumably an admin) is willing to put in the work to excise all the copyvios. Sandstein 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I tried to discuss this with the closer @Patar knight: on his talk page over a month ago, but he has not responded despite being active on his talk page. I believe that this deletion discussion had several procedural errors, and the consensus was not interpreted accurately.

This article is about the same subject as an existing article, Zakarid Armenia, and contains many copyright violations in every revision, which are pointed out in the deletion discussion. This was almost completely ignored in the discussion. The article meets two criteria for deletion (WP:G12 and WP:A10), yet this was largely ignored in the discussion.

The majority vote tally cannot be considered a fair consensus, because there was blatant canvassing by a new IP that was later Checkuser confirmed to be Georgiano. All of the users that the canvassing IP invited voted keep.

Here is some background on this article's creator, who was soon after permanently banned by @Diannaa: for repeated copyright violations. Georgiano wanted the "Zakarids" in Zakarids–Mkhargrdzeli to be dropped, so he created a new article of the exact same subject over the Mkhargrdzeli redirect. After being reverted several times, he kept claiming the Zakarids were actually a "cadet branch of Mkhargrdzeli" despite the article having sources saying they are the same family in different languages. He then tried to rename Zakarid Armenia to Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia, but was reverted for having no consensus. The "Georgian Armenia" article is the exact same situation as the Mkhargrdzeli article: Since he couldn't move the page himself anymore, he simply created a new page of the exact same subject with the title he wanted and filled it with copyright violations and unsourced claims. The Georgian Armenia article has even since been renamed "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia".

Both "Georgian Armenia" and "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia" fail all the naming conventions of WP:TITLE. They both fail WP:VER and WP:OR because no reliable sources of either of these titles being used exist; Georgiano made them both up. They are both also not WP:NPOV because it is a biased interpretation (academics sources were provided in the discussion that proved Zakarid Armenia to be largely independent). So both of these titles should be deleted with the article and not turned into redirects. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've verified that (at least the first 5 or 6) of the copyvios listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Armenia are indeed, exact copies of text taken from other sources, and thus copyvios. These go back to the version of 08:57, 3 March 2019‎ (the first version by Georgiano). I took a look at just cutting out those specific passages. Not only would that be more work than I was willing to invest, it would also leave some sections jumbled and out of context. Whatever else happens, it's clear that the copyvios cannot remain, so I went ahead and WP:REVDEL'd all the affected versions, and restored the redirect, as a temporary measure. I have no strong opinion on the final outcome of this debate. I suspect Patar knight's AfD close will stand in principle, since that looks like it was clearly the consensus of the discussants in that AfD. But, if we do go back to restoring the text, it will have to be with the copyvio's cleared.

    In short, WP:CV is bright-line policy, so I fixed that, but the rest of this is really a content dispute, which WP:DRV doesn't involve itself in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest listing it at WP:CP, which is our main process for handling complex or otherwise non-blatant copyright violations. The article would remain in a blanked state until it can be reviewed by an admin or other experienced copyright editor and it could be deleted if that's necessary to get rid of the copyright violations. There was a consensus in the AfD against the other arguments for deletion. Hut 8.5 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 May 30. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a quick skim, this looks not OK. If a deletion discussion full of copyright allegations was closed with a consensus to "keep", then it is extraordinary that it will soon later be CSD#G12-ed. If the AfD did not agree that they were copyright violations, then they are most certainly not "blatant" copyright violations. I note in passing that Wikipedia is ultraconservative in practice about copyright, going way beyond legal requirements, and sometimes wandering into WP:Copyright paranoia. All in the name of best practice, though. I think this is a rare G12 worthy of tempt-undeletion. It is reasonable to list, behind a blacked page, alleged copyright infringement, for us to make a quick decision. My money is on RoySmith being right, but I think a better process is a fair review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally sympathize with you on all of these points, but I'm afraid I'm going to play it conservatively and decline to undelete. My suggestion is to ask at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 May 30. The folks who hang out there are better versed in our copyright policies than I am; they may be willing to temp-undelete it for you, to which I would have no objection.

I don't think m:Avoid copyright paranoia really applies here. That talks about 1) a few copied phrases, 2) Quotation, even without attribution, and 3) single sentences. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Armenia itemizes multiple passages that are several sentences long, and aren't used as quotations.

Lastly, while this may be wikilawyering, I didn't WP:G12 the article. I redacted the specific infringing revisions, per WP:CRD, item 1 (Blatant violations of the copyright policy). Unfortunately, since the copyvios went back to the earliest revision, that effectively removed the entire text. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (delete). Deletion rationale was strong, including severe copyright issues to which the keep rationales didn’t even respond. Make a list of the references (this list is uncopyrightable) to assist with recreation. WP:TNT. This is effectively the status quo, but it cleans the edit history. If the bulk of the article and edit history is rev-deleted, it should all be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References attached to talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Timotheus Canens: I'm quite certain the IP was previously globally locked by a Checkuser for being a confirmed sock. It locates to the exact same place as another IP of his that is still blocked. --Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_29&oldid=1039532430"