Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flatscan (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 29 September 2013 (re Candleabracadabra). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:22, 29 September 2013 by Flatscan (talk | contribs) (re Candleabracadabra)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
  • 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)
  • I just wanted to say that while this may have been a very minor NPA issue, it was most certainly not an abuse of G4 in any way, Nyttend. Tagging editors do not have access to the deleted version of the page, so parsing the differences between them is impossible. This was a reasonable and good-faith, though ultimately incorrect, G4 tag. Holding that absurd standard would reserve G4 tagging only to admins, since they are the only ones who can investigate thoroughly enough to determine whether the article is truly identical. VanIsaacWS Vex 10:16, 27 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)
  • Comment I am utterly bemused by this. The previously deleted version has 501 words "readable prose text" and four references. The version recently brought to AfD has 694 words and seventeen references. Here is the diff. So far as I can see two references are common to both versions. Are some people here believing these are "substantially identical? Am I looking at the wrong versions for comparison? Of course, there are similarities between the versions and the same editor created both. Note: there is a parallel discussion at WP:AN#G4. Thincat (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge (WP:SMERGE, really) with Fenton, Michigan as Candleabracadabra suggests. Although notability does not seem to be established and much of the material is promotional, some encyclopedic material relevant to Fenton is worth salvaging (WP:PRESERVE). Thincat (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
...truly... we are indeed a cosmopolitan and broad encyclopedia... "the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions"... I stand in awe of our awesomeness... Begoon  17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you are new here! The glory days of shopping mall deletion discussions are long since over. Look at one of the DRVs of MacDade Mall here. And, for sheer quaintness, the closer's rejection of one of its AFD nominations here. Thincat (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much... Not so much new, but young in this area of specialisation. Educated now though, through your grace, and suitably amused with your informative links. Did I thank you? Have another one anyway - thanks... Begoon  19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt to prevent yet another recreation and unnecessary AfD. According to WP:Places of local interest (essay), the relevant guideline is WP:Notability (organizations and companies). The sourcing is completely insufficient to support this article. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yeah, the sourcing, though more thorough, is still incredibly suspect, being composed of promotional rather than informational sources. Suggest simply leaving a warning on the creating editor's user page that without solid sourcing for WP:Notability, this article should not be recreated, but SALTing seems like a step too far: this place could be leading an economic renaissance in Fenton, and it is entirely possible that independent media could cover it in that context. VanIsaacWS Vex 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Fenton, Michigan, and salt the redirect (i.e., protect it so the article can't be recreated). This looks like a non-notable run-of-the-mill local shopping center that someone has documented unusually well. Some of the information is relevant in the context of Fenton, but the topic isn't worthy of a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have merged what I thought was worth including at Fenton, Michigan. I think leaving a redirect would be helpful and have no objetion to protecting it if recreation is a concern. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Reverted Candleabracadabra and revision deleted. Please don't do that until the AFD is closed. Merging that way forces a keep of the parent article due to licensing rules. An editor wound up banned for doing that over objections. If the AFD completes as "merge" or "redirect", then I can unhide your changes.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
A deletion discussion does not prevent good faith edits from going forward. I included some material from this article in another article. It was not some spurrious attempt to preserve this article. You also oversighted edits that had nothing to do with this subject (about downtown redevelopment in Fenton, Michigan and the Old Firehouse) and those need to be restored.
An editor above asked what I would include from this article so I went ahead and did the additions I deemed warranted. There is nothing untoward about my actions and nothing that should have been oversighted. In fact I support the deletion of this article in favor of simply leaving a protected redirect (since there is a history of recreation against consensus).
Whether the history needs to be preserved per policy is a separate issue, but I see no problem with doing that. If you have substantive arguments against noting this development area in the Fenton, Michigan article or arguments against redirecting this title to the parent subject you should present those. You have made it impossible for editors to judge whether the content edits I made were constructive and that is inappropriate. Please go back and undo your oversighting. You are disrupting the discussion and content improvements being attempted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Candleabracadabra, we understand that you didn't do anything to the content of this article. What you did was to use bits of it in another article, and that creates licensing problems if this article is deleted. Please do not merge material from articles at AFD until the AFD is closed. If we keep the history, that means that you have singlehandedly forced the article to be kept. That's unacceptable. Note the text in the Guide to deletion: "Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes".—Kww(talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you are confusing an article being deleted with an article's history being preserved. Do you have any substantive arguments against any of the content additions I made to the Fenton, Michigan? Do you prefer a history merge or a protected redirect? Do you prefer another outcome? Let's stay focused on the disuccion and the best outcome. Also, you need to go back and restore the edits so they can be judged on their merits and because several of them had nothing to do with this article subject. It is not constructive to obstruct this discussion. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I am staying focused on the discussion. I'm not confused. To delete an article means to remove its history. They are synonymous terms. I've told you not to do what you did. I left you a polite message about it. I pointed you at the guideline that explicitly tells you not to do it. I've undone it for you. I do not care whether you improved the article, I care only that if the edits you made were allowed to stand, they would have undermined this AFD. Do not merge material from articles at AFD again.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't do anything to this article. I simply included some bits that seemed worth noting in the parent subject. There is no policy against that. If it makes it necessary to preserve the history that does not prevent the article content here from being deleted. As you noted, it doesn't even have to be kept as a redirect, it can simply be history merged. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
When I asked you what should be merged, I meant that I would like to see a description of the merger, sources in particular. Kww has explained the problem here and at your talk page. A history merge is not appropriate due to parallel versions. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories: