| Revision as of 02:26, 26 September 2013 editBegoon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,915 edits →Silver Lake Village (Michigan): d← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:45, 26 September 2013 edit undoTechnical 13 (talk | contribs)37,142 edits →Silver Lake Village (Michigan): G4Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''Merge''' the key bits to the ] article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such. ] (]) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' the key bits to the ] article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such. ] (]) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' now that the history is visible it seems a stretch to me to say that this is not substantially identical in the spirit surely intended by G4. It certainly doesn't seem to address any of the previous deletion reasons, and the structure, style, content are peas in a pod. As mentioned above, if this isn't G4 worthy then what is the point to G4? May as well just give everyone a new AFD every time they want to recreate anything, so long as they make a few copyedits. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' now that the history is visible it seems a stretch to me to say that this is not substantially identical in the spirit surely intended by G4. It certainly doesn't seem to address any of the previous deletion reasons, and the structure, style, content are peas in a pod. As mentioned above, if this isn't G4 worthy then what is the point to G4? May as well just give everyone a new AFD every time they want to recreate anything, so long as they make a few copyedits. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| * ''Speedy Delete''' as obvious ] ] (]) 05:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:45, 26 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)
- You're accusing me of declining things willy-nilly, and your WP:AN thread shows that this is something you wanted admin intervention on. Read WP:WIAPA #5 and start heeding it, and be aware that continued abuse of G4 will lead to a block as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe we could drop the threats and discuss the merits of keeping or deleting the article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 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)
- Comment: deleted history restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, and yes, G4 does apply. Created by the same person about the same thing with none of the original defects corrected. Are we arguing that articles recreated by people with bad memories aren't eligible for G4?—Kww(talk) 22:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge the key bits to the Fenton, Michigan article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete now that the history is visible it seems a stretch to me to say that this is not substantially identical in the spirit surely intended by G4. It certainly doesn't seem to address any of the previous deletion reasons, and the structure, style, content are peas in a pod. As mentioned above, if this isn't G4 worthy then what is the point to G4? May as well just give everyone a new AFD every time they want to recreate anything, so long as they make a few copyedits. Begoon 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete' as obvious CSD:G4 Technical 13 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)