| Revision as of 01:51, 16 September 2016 editLankiveil (talk | contribs)27,123 editsm →John Basedow: fix typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:17, 16 September 2016 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits →John Basedow: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Overturn G4 speedy'''. G4 is only for articles that are "sufficiently identical copies", but this new version is completely different to the one deleted at AFD and appears to be a complete rewrite from scratch. There might still be a case for deletion but that needs to be decided by the community. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC). | *'''Overturn G4 speedy'''. G4 is only for articles that are "sufficiently identical copies", but this new version is completely different to the one deleted at AFD and appears to be a complete rewrite from scratch. There might still be a case for deletion but that needs to be decided by the community. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC). | ||
| *'''Overturn''' ] as it has been stated that it was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version (taking Lankiveil's word on it, as I can't view it as a non-administrator), with no prejudice to this article being listed at ] after restoration.<small>— ]<sup> (]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 04:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | *'''Overturn''' ] as it has been stated that it was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version (taking Lankiveil's word on it, as I can't view it as a non-administrator), with no prejudice to this article being listed at ] after restoration.<small>— ]<sup> (]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 04:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| *Its still reading as a bit promotional and its so surprising that this inexperienced user has appeared from a long absence to draft a slightly spammy article so perfectly formatted that I'm really wondering whether there is a connection between the author and the subject. I have been around a decade and couldn't format an article so well. I'd like to have that clarified before I formally opine but my view is that we should just resend this to AFD to deal with the issue of promotion. | |||
Revision as of 07:17, 16 September 2016
< 2016 September 13 Deletion review archives: 2016 September 2016 September 15 >14 September 2016
John Basedow
The prior AFD supported a WP:TNT approach, that the article was poorly sourced, and had unresolved copvio issues. The current copy does not have these issues. Additionally, the admin deleted the article under CSD, as opposed to relisting an AFD (given that more than a year has elapsed and the copy does not have the same issues the previous one is said to have had). StonefieldBreeze (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural: This clearly-not-so-new user has move-warred to get his version into mainspace while the DRV's ongoing. I've therefore blanked it with {{Temporarily undeleted}} per SOP. I have not, however, restored any of the actually-deleted revisions because of the allegations of copyvio in the history; I'm currently a bit busy in RL so don't have time to investigate that properly. —Cryptic 23:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 speedy. G4 is only for articles that are "sufficiently identical copies", but this new version is completely different to the one deleted at AFD and appears to be a complete rewrite from scratch. There might still be a case for deletion but that needs to be decided by the community. Lankiveil 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC).
- Overturn WP:CSD#G4 as it has been stated that it was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version (taking Lankiveil's word on it, as I can't view it as a non-administrator), with no prejudice to this article being listed at AfD after restoration.— GodsyCONT) 04:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Its still reading as a bit promotional and its so surprising that this inexperienced user has appeared from a long absence to draft a slightly spammy article so perfectly formatted that I'm really wondering whether there is a connection between the author and the subject. I have been around a decade and couldn't format an article so well. I'd like to have that clarified before I formally opine but my view is that we should just resend this to AFD to deal with the issue of promotion.