Mateusz Grzesiak – There is no consensus on whether this was an appropriate speedy deletion, which under DRV procedures means the article will be restored without prejudice against another AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dear fellow wikipedia users. The following article was delated earlier in October 2022. In comparison to the previously delated article a number of changes were implemented. This includes reliable sources as well as neutral language which cannot be considered as ‘promotional’. In fact the text which was published today does not share any similarities with the previous one. However, after publishing it was tagged for speedy deletion without any possibility to contest this decision.
It is also hard to agree that the person fails WP:NPROF as he is in fact one of the most popular psychologists in Poland who has appeared many times in mass media and has published over 27 books. He has also received a well-known and significant award or honor, i.e. he was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by the Polish President. ([1])
Overall, bearing in mind the above-mentioned argumentation, I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision for speedy deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix1917 (talk • contribs)
You would probably do better to talk to the deleting admin at User talk:Hadal first. I have provided a note there that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger and Matrix1917: Thanks for the head's up Phil! Re: Mateusz Grzesiak, I deleted it because from my perspective it did meet the CSD criteria for WP:G4. Same subject, same general claim to notability, same general content. Per the G4 policy, it would have been better to create this 'new' version as a draft for review before publishing it in the main namespace. Now that it's deleted, perhaps this is better handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
I don't claim to have any special knowledge of Polish culture; yet, I will point out that this individual does not appear to have an entry on the Polish Wikipedia and he is not listed, even as an unlinked mention, at pl:Grzesiak. When looking at this instance together with the previous AfD discussion, it is also interesting that the proponents of the article have very few major edits outside of this specific BLP topic.
As a constructive suggestion, if you plan to request undeletion, that you bring this to the attention of editors who can offer an informed opinion: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland as a place to start. --Hadal (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original close if this is an appeal of the original close, but it does not appear to be an appeal of the original close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the way G4 is written, it's for pages that are basically identical to the deleted version. This wasn't identical but is similar enough to be an edge case, however one of the edits to the recreated page literally has "repost" as an edit summary, revealing the editor's intent. I endorse this as an WP:IAR G4 - we're not a bureaucracy, articles which are obviously unsuitable should be removed, regardless of what the written rules say. An alternative could have been to draftify but I can't fault the deleting admin's choice. As for the earlier deletion discussion, it's clearly a consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Admin's description of deleted content is very clear that it fails the It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version clause of G4. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't require the restored page to be byte-for-byte identical, only substantially similar without having addressed the reason for deletion. The exact wording of the criterion is not intended to be used to end-run a deletion discussion to repost a deleted-by-consensus article with only trivial changes; that would be both wikilawyering and gaming the system. Undeleting an article just to have a new deletion discussion where the same result can be expected is just a waste of everyone's time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the word 'similar' does not appear in G4; the operative phrase is sufficiently identical. The restored content demonstrates that G4 did not apply, based on this comparison. The wording is different, the claims are different, and different sources are cited for similar claims--e.g. the National Education commission medal. While what you state about "trivial changes" is clearly true, it does not appear to be applicable to this case. Regardless of whether the revised article should prove unworthy, a second AfD is in order, and can provide much better opinions on whether an editor is recycling content with trivial changes--disruptive editing--than can a single administrator processing a speedy deletion request. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. If editors in good faith disagree about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then it does not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suppose I can't endorse my own deletion, but I wanted to point out that the article title was salted for a reason. Per the AfD discussion there have been repeated efforts to introduce this BLP at the Polish Wikipedia with similarly negative results. Despite the language of CSD:G4, the actual information in the article and the claim to notability were the same. Given this context, I strongly suggest that any restoration of the article content be done in the Draft namespace. --Hadal (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I have undeleted the version most recently deleted, as well as the last revision of the version deleted at AFD, so that everyone can review and comment on whether or not this was valid as a WP:G4 deletion. Please check the page history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not sufficiently identical. G4 serves to save time by avoiding superfluous consecutive AfDs, but applying G4 to insufficiently identical articles, despite a very high likelihood that a new AfD would have the same outcome (—apart from not being what WP:CSD says—) doesn't reliably produce efficiency because there's a probability that the deletion will be challenged, which then may need to be discussed at DRV, such as in the present case; this is not very expedient. Drafts have nothing to with this because drafting can't make an already provenly non-notable topic notable. What should have been done instead of G4 is AfD, and what should be done now is still AfD. —Alalch E. 11:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Recreation was clearly an attempt to make an end-run around the consensus at the AFD. Doesn't technically meet the letter of G4, but clearly meets the spirit. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please illuminate how you reached this conclusion with respect to editor intent? Is there some other evidence that should be presented here? Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the two versions is different in detail but very similar in their broad direction and their style. Both versions contain quite distinctive, and very exhaustive, tables of Mr Grzesiak's various publications, and I would tend to see both versions as more reminiscent of a CV than a biography. I'm unable to endorse the G4, but I also wouldn't say we should restore either version to the mainspace.—S MarshallT/C 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 deletion, the new version is substantially identical to the old one in that it does not appear to address the reasons for which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mateusz Grzesiak resulted in deletion. Pinging Piotrus as the AfD nominator who might be able to provide a more nuanced opinion. Sandstein 05:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing by comment since I was pinged: I probably don't have much to add to what I said. Bronze Cross of Merit is, I think, not considered suffcient for BLP on pl wiki (if it was, then the biography wouldn't have been deleted from pl wiki, either). Interestingly, publishing 27 books is a type of an argument that usually sways people on pl wiki in favor of keeping an article. The odds are this one is suffering from too much blatant attempts to use Wikipedia to promote the subject, which causes a form of deletion-boomerang allegergic response... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 deletion. The new version is not meaningfully different than the older version. No objection to the nominator working on this topic further in draft space provided it goes through an WP:AFC review before being moved to main space.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how "meaningfully different" as a criterion aligns with the wording of G4? Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, send to AFD if someone wants to. The article is sufficiently different from the previous version to merit independent discussion, with a range of plausibly different notability claims, additional/different sources, and some of the hype removed (I recognize the argument that G4 does not require word-for-word identical, or merely cosmetic changes, but I also think G4 was intended to cover situations where unambiguously the content is essentially the same, not where content isn't the same but people merely see the same issue, like promotion). I am unable to judge if the Bronze Cross is a reasonable new claim of notability, whether editing is enough to change the still overly promotional/CV-like tone, but I see enough has changed from the version deleted at the last AFD that I am not comfortable relying on G4 to nuke this new version. That said, I think if this does go to AFD, there will be sufficient prejudice against it in its current state, given the history, that I'd strongly advise editors seeking to keep it to bend over backwards to make it neutral and not promotional, to not ref-bomb but emphasize the independent in-depth sources they feel establish notability. Martinp (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the editor effort expended here have been better spent after speedy deletion had been contested by established editors in another, decisive, AfD discussion, at which, if I had decided to take part, I would probably have plumped for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Change to no consensus, a very close call which, in terms of keeping a page, should be enough for a no consensus. Many editors gave good reasoning for keeping the popular page (pointed out to have 12,000 views a month) and in situations like this a no consensus close would be as common as a delete, this one just happened to fall on the delete side by the comments of one or two additional editors giving opinions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - a tough call, and I think you could have explained better ("you see where the deletes edge out" isn't really an explanation - why do they edge out?), but I find myself agreeing with the conclusion. The core arguments to delete were WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a longstanding Wikipedia policy), and that the list constituted a grouping of inherently non-notable individuals. The keep counterargument was that WP:NOTEWORTHY, part of the main guideline on notability, exempts members of lists based on a notable group from being required to meet notability standards individually: since the notability of the group is established, the notability of the members of the list was not a reason for deletion. It can be seen from the last few days of discussion that new comments continued to back up the nominator's rationale despite this keep argument, which suggests that editors did not consider it convincing. There were no new "keep" !votes after 19 February (except one that was plainly an appeal to emotion and an argument to avoid), though the discussion was open for another 17 days afterwards and relisted once in that time. This is a rather clear consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NCCT55555's takedown of NOTMEMORIAL was never adequately addressed, giving policy-based edge to the Keeps. Keep would have been a reasonable close, but NC is adequate. WP:VAGUEWAVEs must yield to specific rebuttals of what the policy, guideline, or essay, actually says every time. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tempted to say overturn, but I'm involved and think this review would be better lead by people less involved. But I do agree with Jclemens that my (I think, I hope) careful explanation of why NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply was not addressed. CT55555(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer, here's one more comment from Parzival1780 which ended up in the wrong spot. Want their input to be included so flagging. While I'm aware that Article was useful, did not need to be deleted is not a reason for DRV, I encourage new user leniency as the discussion on my Talk indicates. StarMississippi 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is based on the argument that the list mainly consisted of non-notable people. There isn't actually much in the way of policy/guideline support for this as a basis for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE does give this as a standard, but it isn't exactly mandatory and it's mainly used to keep lists with a broad scope from becoming too big, which isn't a problem here. WP:NLIST is the usual standard to apply for notability of lists, but I don't see anybody on the Delete side citing it. The argument that it should be deleted as unencyclopedic based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL is rather stronger, in my view, but that's very much a judgement call for the participants and I don't see much of a consensus on it. Hut 8.5 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, not an easy call to make, but ultimately well and sensitively made. While there were some claims made that WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply but WP:NLIST exceptions should, those claims were reasonably rebutted by some and apparently found unpersuasive by others. The closer did a reasonable job reading policy-based consensus accurately. That's process; getting into substance: 1) reading the surrounding discussion (including on the closer's talkpage prior to this DRV being opened), it's pretty clear it is precisely because many people feel there should be such a list *as a memorial of the individuals* that this is such an emotive discussion; 2) I can't but help think this would be a noncontroversial delete close if it were a (comparably sourced) list of victims of a tragedy, first responders or no, elsewhere in the world. I agree that as a society, America should remember these heroes by name; but that doesn't mean a en.wp list is the way to do it. Martinp (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add: In the event the deletion does not get overturned here, I would expect any admin would be willing to userfy the deleted list to someone, anyone, who would want to move it to be stored elsewhere on the internet, for instance a wiki with different scope than en.wp. I am sensitive to the arguments like those of Randy Kryn and Parzival1780, which I don't think are strong from a deletion discussion/deletion review point of view here, but do reflect that this is material assembled with effort and dedication, important for many people to keep available somewhere. So I am sure the goal is not to unceremoniously nuke it, rather to enable it to be moved somewhere where it is not out of scope/policy. Martinp (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of why Parzival found their password, in addition to making communication slightly easier, was that Randy Kryn and I had advised them that your suggestion was a potential route. I would absolutely support this outcome. And while I'm here, @Ivanvector, thanks for feedback on improving closes. Very helpful. StarMississippi 01:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Both the delete and a no consensus close would be an acceptable reading of the discussion. The policy arguments were strong in both the keep and the delete statements, but there was a small or solid majority of comments in favor of not keeping the article (including the redirect and merge comments). --Enos733 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Well-reasoned, sensitive closure and NOTMEMORIAL applies. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It isn't the job of DRV to decide whether the close was perfect, or whether the close was what each DRV participant would have done, but whether the close was a valid assessment. I haven't tried to assess how I would close the deletion discussion, and don't want to. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Overturning to "no consensus" would mean undeleting the whole list, and this is something that is too risky at the moment. The close was correct, and the !del arguments weigh more than !keep ones to me. If policy is stronger than guideline, then let's not overturn and undelete. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay George Ho, I'll bite. Why would it be "too risky at the moment" to undelete the whole list? Curious, as I haven't read the article, which is behind the admin wall. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting the whole list would mean reviewing longstanding policies that are expected to be usually enforced by editors and readers, like NOTMEMORIAL. Trying not to apply that policy is something that I don't want to do. Furthermore, even with reliable sources verifying past existences of such workers, I agree with others about the criteria being broader than it should have been. Moreover, this project isn't the place to use just to attract viewership. Plus, I would fear further content disputes over and over. George Ho (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds to me like you're itching to apply the Supreme policies of Wikipedia, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Editors and closers almost always forget that WP:IAR is policy and think of it as an exotic rarely used back door when, in fact, it's a policy that is above both guidelines and all other policies. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean ignoring WP:NOTBURO also? I know that NOTMEMORIAL seems too bureaucratic or too preventive to you and not set in stone, but the policy and its spirit are too hard to ignore, especially when the project's integrity is at stake. Same for NOTBURO, which also mentions IAR. I appreciate the editors' efforts to contribute to the deleted list, but.... Still, the close should be followed and set a precedence about such lists. George Ho (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBURO tells us "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." The original RfD and this discussion include many editors who say that the page does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL - I personally don't know because I haven't read the page - so that should be a consideration that a solid point-of-view exists that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reminded me of bludgeoning in another AFD discussion. Haven't you thought that you're doing the same thing to me too? Also, what about the "without considering their principles" part? Furthermore, you interchangeably used "RFD" and "AFD". Moreover, I wonder whether you filed a deletion review before, despite your participating in other DRV discussions. You were asking one of admins to reconsider at one's talk page. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant mine, I don't see any issue with @Randy Kryn joining this discussion when we were discussing a different article on my Talk and my busted formatting led to Parzival's inquiry landing literally inside our discussion. StarMississippi 22:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as original nominator). Keep arguments boiled down to variations on the theme of "I like it" and "it's notable" (sans sources). Nobody explained how there was encyclopaedic value on a long list of non-notable, poorly sourced names (which is not to slight those people in any way; it's just that knowing the name of every casualty adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the incident). If this were any event besides 9/11, this would be a textbook case of a memorial page and an indiscriminate collection of information. The keep votes either ignored the policy arguments in favour of guidelines (WP:NOT is policy, notability is a guideline) or their arguments focused on the coverage of subject rather than the names; some were just appeals to emotion. I completely get that 9/11 is an emotive subject but Wikipedia should cover emotive subjects dispassionately. I suggested several times that a prose article about emergency service casualties or the emergency response would be appropriate, though I've since learnt that we have not only List of emergency and first responder agencies that responded to the September 11 attacks (which in my opinion fails exactly the same policies as this list) but also Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Perhaps an appropriate redirect would make sure that readers can still find encyclopaedic information, and appropriate external links can direct them to some of the many sites with a more fitting scope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While I generally think the keep !votes are correct in the application of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, they did not really rebut the notability and sourcing concerns from the delete side. Since ultimately, even if this is not barred by NOTMEMORIAL, it must still meet group notability guidelines and be reliably sourced, I find the close reasonable. I would propose a WP:CNR to Category:Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks which provides a list of notable individuals. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
