| Revision as of 19:08, 25 September 2013 editTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers278,863 edits r← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:35, 25 September 2013 edit undoFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,302 edits →Silver Lake Village (Michigan): delete, and comment on G4Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Comment''' Contrary to the nominator's ]-violating statement, the G4 tag was declined because it did not apply. Tagging articles for G4 just because they have "virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing" is an abuse of the process, since far more than "some similar phrasing" is required for G4. ] (]) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Contrary to the nominator's ]-violating statement, the G4 tag was declined because it did not apply. Tagging articles for G4 just because they have "virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing" is an abuse of the process, since far more than "some similar phrasing" is required for G4. ] (]) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :*How the hell is "declined for no reason" an attack? Please don't be so oversensitive. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | :*How the hell is "declined for no reason" an attack? Please don't be so oversensitive. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''': Having looked at the deleted version of the article, I'd say this is ''pretty damn close'' to the same article, perhaps even ''substantially identical'', although admittedly not ''identical identical''. Created by the same editor 3 months after the previous AFD ended, with the same basic scope, the same article organization, ''worse'' references, and no indication of notability - the reason for the previous deletion has not been addressed in any way. Not sure what the point of G4 is, if this doesn't qualify. All you have to do is re-word a few things and remove a few references and you get a new bite at the apple? BTW, I'm going to restore the article history while this AFD is going on, so non-admins can see it for themselves. --] (]) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:35, 25 September 2013
Silver Lake Village (Michigan)
AfDs for this article:- Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
G4 declined for no reason. Blatant advertising for a non-notable strip mall. The only sources are the individual websites of the companies in it, a couple real estate listings on Loopnet, and a fansite about drive-in theaters. No secondary sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment A reason was given for declining the WP:CSD#G4 which was "Completely different article". Because I cannot see the previous article I cannot tell which was appropriate—the speedy deletion request or its rejection. Could the nominator see the previous article? Thincat (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, but I do remember the previous version having virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing, so I felt that it met "substantially similar". If an admin could corroborate, please do so. Ten Pound Hammer • 11:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. G4 does not apply if the two versions are "not substantially identical". I have no idea whether the topic is notable (but it is certainly of no interest to me). Thincat (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Contrary to the nominator's WP:NPA-violating statement, the G4 tag was declined because it did not apply. Tagging articles for G4 just because they have "virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing" is an abuse of the process, since far more than "some similar phrasing" is required for G4. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- How the hell is "declined for no reason" an attack? Please don't be so oversensitive. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Having looked at the deleted version of the article, I'd say this is pretty damn close to the same article, perhaps even substantially identical, although admittedly not identical identical. Created by the same editor 3 months after the previous AFD ended, with the same basic scope, the same article organization, worse references, and no indication of notability - the reason for the previous deletion has not been addressed in any way. Not sure what the point of G4 is, if this doesn't qualify. All you have to do is re-word a few things and remove a few references and you get a new bite at the apple? BTW, I'm going to restore the article history while this AFD is going on, so non-admins can see it for themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)