Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:28, 30 November 2024

26 November 2024

Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)

Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No consensus to delete, there were more editors opposing the deletion and even those who were on the fence regarding the current article were against WP:TNT. Multiple sources were provided that discuss this in great detail. The article was being improved with subpar sources being removed and reliable sources being added. Alaexis_¿question? 21:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. Most of the Keep (or "Oppose") !votes were little more than disagreement with the nom. Not violating WP:FRINGE or NPOV are not, by themselves, a valid reason to keep an article, if sourcing does not support it. Most Delete views, on the other hand, were skillfully argued, and weren't refuted by the Keeps. Citing sources that merely quote Russian propaganda doesn't help with WP:RS. Once you discard the non-P&G-based !votes, you're left with a rough consensus to delete, which asilvering carefully explained in their closing rationale. Owen× ☎ 22:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I can't agree that the Delete votes were skillfully argued. They did not refute the main argument for keeping the article which was that are several RS that discuss this topic in detail. These are books published in the US and Europe by distinguished historians (Carlotta Gall, Thomas de Waal, Jim Hughes (academic), John B. Dunlop). If Misplaced Pages editors don't agree with them it doesn't make them unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Basically, it's the opposing editors who had policy based arguments (sources proving that the topic satisfies WP:GNG). Alaexis_¿question? 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - it is not a vote, but in any case, when you count the nom, there were not more opposes. As for the arguments - it looks like asilvering evaluated those correctly and made good points in the close rationale. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  The close rationale simply said that the delete position has been significantly more persuasively argued. He did not engage with the arguments of those who opposed the deletion. Alaexis_¿question? 22:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment not understanding why this wasn't merged to First Chechen War as suggested. I get this is a contentious topic, so it's all the more worthwhile to channel POV forks, if indeed this is one, into better curated NPOV articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse there was general agreement this should be deleted, and the refutation of the sources as unreliable was convincing. Will not be following this page, so no need to reply to me. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer's statement that the Delete statements were better argued is supported by many of the Keep or Oppose votes being I like it, and this was a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Northeastern United States wildfires

2024 Northeastern United States wildfires (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There weren’t a lot of outside contributions, but there were some, so WP:G5 was already sketchy. Plus, it was on a notable topic that leaves a bit of a gaping hole in Misplaced Pages if deleted. Thus, the speedy deletion should be overturned. 2600:4808:290:1040:B910:2DB:56CA:3C53 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Any particular reason the deleting admin @Explicit: was not notified of this deletion review? The appellant is required to notify the deleting admin before starting a deletion review and, optionally, seek clarification on their talk page. Frank Anchor 21:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• I will neither endorse nor refute the G5 as I can not access the deleted page's history, though I am sure Explicit did their homework before deleting the page (I am not requesting a temp undeletion). Either way Endorse per Cryptic’s analysis of the page’s history. No significant contributions by anyone except the blocked user. However, recreation is allowed by any user in good standing since the deletion is due to the user who created it, and not due to its content. Frank Anchor 21:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn G5. The article was indeed created by a now-banned sock - in draftspace. It was duly submitted to AfC the next day, accepted and moved to mainspace by Wikishovel - an experienced new page reviewer. Regardless of its author, once it passed AfC by an uninvolved reviewer in good standing, it no longer qualifies for G5. The author continued working on the article, now in mainspace, for another ten days before they were banned, at which point Wizzito incorrectly tagged it with G5, and Explicit hastily deleted it. TROUT the appellant for not giving Explicit a chance to correct his mistake before bringing this here. I see no point in recreating the article from scratch, seeing as we already have a version good enough to pass AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

OwenX, where is the policy that says drafts moved to mainspace in good faith by an uninvolved editor can't be deleted G5? Wikishovel (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Not OwenX, but I'd say that have no substantial edits by others would not be met by something moved to mainspace by a different editor. That is, the act of mainspacing a draft should count as a substantial edit for G5 purposes. And I'd agree with that. Overturn G5. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

G5 is not applicable as long as the sockpuppet successfully deceives the community into accepting their drafts? That's... a take. Andrew5 is not just blocked, but banned. WP:BMB applies to their sockpuppet contributions. ✗plicit 00:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly not a take I've heard of before, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all. Endorse G5 - an AfC accept isn't a "substantial edit". -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft space is no different than anywhere else. If a sockpuppet successfully deceives the community into making substantial edits to a page created in mainspace, it's G5 immune as well. Nothing special about the AfC process here, and no particular reason to not take this through a full deletion discussion; arguing that G5 doesn't apply doesn't mean the article needs to stay, just that it shouldn't be summarily deleted if at least one good faith editor thought it meritorious enough to mainspace it from draft. If deceived, that editor can certainly say so, and should, at the ensuing deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. What I'm disagreeing with is your statement that the act of mainspacing a draft should count as a substantial edit for G5 purposes. It should not. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the merit of this position too, and don't hold my perspective particularly strongly. Rather, it's always been an outgrowth of "When in doubt, no CSD and go to XfD". As we have plenty of regulars here on both sides of the question, an RfC to settle it is certainly a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should've run this through afd first and kept it there. It would've been unambiguously G5able then. —Cryptic 04:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That only applies if the AFD takes place before the sock is revealed. If it’s AFD’d after the sock is revealed, then G5 does not apply. 96.57.52.66 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that a reviewer accepting at AfC precludes G5, unless it is the reviewer appealing the G5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

AfC is already onerous, many things to check, don’t add SPI of the draft’s author to that list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot tell if there were other edits to this article, but I strongly disagree that an article accepted at AfC would be immune from a G5 just on the basis that it was accepted. As an AfC reviewer I do not think accepting is a "substantial edit" but is more confirmation a draft is ready for mainspace. It's a click of a button, not an edit. Furthermore there is not necessarily any way of knowing if the creator was banned when you accept. Only overturn if other users have worked on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Whichever decision we make here we should definitely codify it at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion itself - I can see the argument behind both sides here and it would be nice to have a consistent consensus to fall back on. Personally I would consider AfC acceptances substantive in most situations, but endorse this deletion nevertheless since Wikishovel's comment above makes it clear that they don't think their own edit counts as substantive which is sufficient to push the deletion over the line into acceptable territory. I'm also highly skeptical of the nominator here, who has no other edits and is probably another Andrew5 sock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• There were no significant edits to the deleted page other than by User:Coster85, and DRVs of G5s by ips and new users should be speedy rejected on principle anyway. Endorse. —Cryptic 01:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is a good point. Is there ever any reason we should want IPs to start a DRV? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because they've validly challenged deletions here which we've ended up overturning, plenty of times. Couple of them are linked from the last time you brought this up. But I don't think I've ever seen a successful challenge specifically of a G5 by one, and there's ample reason not to assume good faith in such a circumstance. —Cryptic 12:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're obviously better at keeping track of things than I am. Since that July edit, how many meritorious--not necessarily sustained, but including those that were clearly good faith and raised a question not simply answered by a policy page--IP-rased DRVs have we had? Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• The ambiguity seems to lie in the current wording of that have no substantial edits by others. I read that as "substantial changes of content", rather than "substantial changes to the article" (like a change of namespace), and IIRC I made few if any changes to content. User:Pppery above is absolutely right to say this should be clarified at WP:CSD#G5, but I'd also ask editors to consider potential unintended consequences of a codified change. Declaring that a good faith change of namespace by an experienced reviewer counts on its own as "substantial edits" could be a fabulous Christmas gift of a loophole for the sockfarms. Any objections to me pinging some of the more active SPI and NPP admins, e.g. User:Girth Summit, User:Spicy, User:Itzo User:Izno, User:Bbb23, User:Jimfbleak, etc? I don't mean to canvas, but I suspect that they might have some strong opinions on this. Wikishovel (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No objections made, so pinging @Girth Summit, Spicy, Izno, Bbb23, and Jimfbleak: for comment. Wikishovel (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - If I accepted a draft by a banned user, I was conned, and wouldn't want to be responsible for allowing something to be sneaked in. If an IP editor appeals a G5, I am wary that it may BE the banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I can personally attest to making an update to the article on 2024-11-16 that Cryptic must not have realized when making the analysis. I forgot what I added but it was an update not just a minor typo fix. Therefore, my edit should exempt it from G5 even if the AFC acceptance did not. --96.57.52.66 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are not obviously not subject to block or sanction when editing as an IP, are you? Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  That IP did indeed make two edits (admin-only links) to the page before it was deleted. But both of those are nowhere near "substantial" as the community defines that term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• General comment: I have been deleting a few G5s of late that have been draft moves and those have made me twitch because of the line of interest. From a simple utility perspective I don't think it should be enough to stop a G5 - otherwise this is a substantial path of abuse. And there are many other G5 deletions of drafts and sandboxes moved by sock/UPE groups that would also be stopped by making G5 interpretation include moves. I don't think it's right to send them back to draft space either since that just leaves the sock creation to be moved again by another good or bad faith account. But the line in the policy is there and I think it's a valid argument to say a move is a substantial contribution.... None of this is a comment on this specific deletion. Izno (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Responding to ping above. I do not agree with the notion that a draft passing AfC renders it ineligible for G5 deletion - I don't think that is in line with the letter or the spirit of the guidance. In considering a draft, the reviewer will likely make a few insubstantial fixes, but they seldom make anything that I would consider to be 'substantial edits'. In circumstances that I think are borderline, if for example the reviewer did significant work on the prose or sourcing, I might reach out to the reviewer and ask whether they consider their edits to be substantial, and whether they object to a G5 deletion - in my experience, reviewers are generally happy for it to be deleted when they learn the article was written by a sock, and I can only bring one occasion to mind when somebody told me that they considered their edits to be substantial and they wanted the article to be retained. Now, in this specific case, I see that Wikishovel did some minor touch-ups as they accepted the draft; 96.57.52.66 added two words, and replaced one word for another; AntiCompositeNumber used a tool to improve ref formatting, a bot dated a tag, Epicgenius wrote a four-word short description, SWinxy added an image - these are all routine gnoming edits that new articles tend to attract in short order. I do not consider any of them to be substantial, and I therefore endorse the deletion. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Had the AfC reviewer been tricked into accepting a hoax or other content that doesn't belong here, I'd gladly endorse the deletion. But that is not the case. This is a well sourced, decently written article about a notable topic, available to us with zero effort at the click of the Undelete button. And yet, some here are seriously arguing to cut our nose off to WP:SPITE a sock. I understand the deterrence value of WP:DENY, but with all due respect, this is going too far in applying the letter of the law to no one's benefit. A bad actor left us a good gift. I see no reason to toss it in the bin just on principle. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking of WP:BMB rather than WP:DENY. Wikishovel (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  BMB instructs us to ban/block such disruptive editors even when they make good edits. We've already done that. BMB does not compel us to revert good edits, and it certainly doesn't force us to give up a good article based solely based on its author. The DENY essay recommends we do so, and G5 allows us to do so under certain conditions. But again, to what end? Who benefits from giving up this content? Owen× ☎ 20:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  User:OwenX, you seem ready to personally adopt the article. Why don’t you simply do so? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  According to WP:Banning policy#Proxying (policy, shortcut WP:PROXYING), Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. Although it is not documented in further detail there or under WP:G5, discussions such as WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77#G5 and WP:PROXYING (2020) indicate that an editor can declare that they are taking responsibility and thus avoid G5. In my opinion, the mechanism is that the declaring editor is considered to have made the banned user's edits, not that the declaration itself is "substantial". Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yuck. This is a topic about which we should have an article because the northeast does not have brushfires in November, and the bulk of them are not likely notable on their own. We have a lot of sockmasters in natural disaster areas, and because one beat the editing community to this draft, Misplaced Pages is worse off because the deletion was correct. That said, suggest someone start a stub on this topic. Star Mississippi 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. IPs don’t have good standing to comment on sockpuppetry. If you want to appeal a deletion, either log in or register. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Cannot see why this should be closed as no consensus. Only one editor opposed the delete with three in support of deletion. Okay, it was relisted with a request for further information, which was never given. However WP:NOTCATALOG is policy, and as this is article is clearly a catalog of releases for DVD reissues (established by precedent at a whole host of other deletion discussions detailed at the linked discussion), something is wrong if we allow the one oppose citing the guideline WP:NLIST to trump policy. --woodensuperman 08:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. I see a valid nomination, one P&G-based Keep !vote, and two Delete votes that have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, and were correctly WP:DISCARDed by the closer. A no-consensus close was the correct outcome. Owen× ☎ 11:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse only the nom and the lone keep !vote were supported by policies and guidelines. The two delete !votes were along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even of the keep !vote is (incorrectly) discarded because it only cites a guideline, it would leave just the single nom statement, which is not a WP:QUORUM to delete (as quorum refers to valid !votes, not just people showing up). I would not oppose a third relist or an immediate renomination, due to the lack of attendance and the question posted by asilvering in the second relist, which went unanswered. Frank Anchor 15:18, 26 November 2024
• Endorse I don't think there was enough of a consensus WP:NOTCATALOG applied to get this deleted. Typically if something is NOT it doesn't matter if it otherwise meets our guidelines, so I think both the final relist rationale and the admin's comment about that relist are incorrect, but that doesn't change the overall result. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus of the discussion. One keep and three deletes. It is for AFD to interpret and apply policies and guidelines to an individual situation. Failure to answer a question should not result in an XFD being resolved against those apparently expected to answer. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete per Stifle. I see a clear consensus to delete here, and the assertion that the list is inherently against WP:NOT is not worthy of being discounted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'd have relisted it, myself. Which I suppose is effectively an endorsement of the no-consensus close, but if it were the final relist, I'd have deleted. I suppose this boils down to don't overturn. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - When the Delete voters didn't answer the relisting question, their Delete arguments have something of the nature of I don't like it. No Consensus is always an unsatisfying close, but that is because the lack of a consensus is unsatisfying, and the closer can't invent a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Without respect to the relisting timing, the non-nominator keep delete !votes did not articulate any policy-based deletion rationale and were appropriately discarded. More concerningly, we have people who want NOT to be a super-policy, when NOT is the most malleable and open to interpretation policy--or policy family, really--we have. When there's any tie or near-tie over whether NOT applies or not, not NOT should prevail. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It seems disingenuous to discount the two other "delete" !votes, when they make a valid point. If this was material created by the studio, then the nomination would not have been made. But as this list does not contain material produced by the studio, it is just a re-release catalog, and a valid reason to delete, not simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote as is being suggested by some editors here. --woodensuperman 12:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is no policy or guideline that links notability with original releases. "Delete because they don't produce any original content" is exactly the kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote that WP:DISCARD instructs us to ignore. Claiming otherwise because their !vote happens to coincide with yours is disingenuous and tendentious. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  A list of films produced by a studio is not a catalogue. A list of films re-issued by a DVD company is a catalogue as they are not producing the films. WP:NOTCATALOG is policy. The two other delete !votes are in line with this. --woodensuperman 14:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  A list of films produced by a studio is not a catalogue. A list of films re-issued by a DVD company is a catalogue as they are not producing the films - can you point to the policy or guideline that makes this distinction, please? Owen× ☎ 14:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCATALOG: Listings to be avoided include products. And WP:COMMONSENSE. --woodensuperman 14:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  So...a listing of products by a studio is not a catalog, but a listing of the same products by a DVD company is? This isn't "WP:COMMONSENSE", it's WP:TENDENTIOUS - an attempt to twist and creatively reinterpret policy so that it happens to coincide with the result you seek. The bottom line is, quote "WP:NOTCATALOG" as many times as you want, our P&G do not make any distinction between original releases and other releases. If you believe this makes no sense, start an RfC to change our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I really don't understand how you're not getting that a catalog listing commercial DVD re-releases by a third party company is quite simply nothing more than a WP:CATALOG, and that a list of films created by a studio is something entirely different. No need to change the guidelines, they're already clear. --woodensuperman 15:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  A real catalog--I'm old enough to remember them--only includes things currently offered for sale, has prices, and instructions on how to purchase those products. NOTCATALOG does not necessarily presume all of those elements must be present, but you'll excuse me and others if we don't necessarily see a bare listing without any such elements as a catalog for NOTCATALOG purposes. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. The nominator doesn’t see why it is no consensus? The simplest and first reason is the too-brief AfD nomination. See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)