User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closer and all the instructions are to discuss this with the closing admin but it wasn't closed by an administrator. Further, the non-admin closed an extremely contentious discussion about a seven year old single sentence draft. The closing remarks stated that "it is identical circumstances to several others nominated the same day, that all ended in the same result" and thus the basis of the close was not the actual discussion within it but these allegedly other nominated discussions that resulted in the same way. Note that they all closed by the same way because the same non-admin closed all the discussions the same way that day (here is 1, 2, 3, and 4) but only this one contains the fact that the basis for closure was the other discussions. Of the !votes there, we have three people supporting outright deletion, one IP saying keep citing the nonsense of WP:AGF, one who states "blank and redirect" without further discussion and finally Fagles' lengthy diatribe citing his personal opinion that "standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace" is to redirect when there is no connected history (which is a false assertion of current policy and then is quoting the "don't clean up" language from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter added here without any discussion and which is not a policy). SmokeyJoe doesn't actually vote but is arguing about the technicality that WP:UP#COPIES doesn't apply because it's not actually a copy of a mainspace article since it's not a verbatim copyright infringement so it shouldn't be deleted, a policy that was entirely created by SmokeyJoe at WP:UP with so much edit warring to make it "policy" that the page is now protected. There's numerous discussions along the same line and I think having an admin close these discussions is a bare minimum here. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a non-admin close. Any administrator, including yourself, even if involved, may revert a non-admin close. You should do this before bringing the matter to DRV.

I didn't !vote, but am hoping to encourage the nominator to improve the quality of his deletion nomination rationales. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the record, Ricky misrepresents me. I have argued that a verbatim copyright infringement should be deleted, always, and never have I seen anyone actively disagree. If it is not a verbatim copyright infringement, it is not to be deleted per the WP:UP#COPIES rationale, because it doesn't apply. Ricky has poor attention to details, I note. It may, of course, be deleted for other reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple answer. No one made the case that there was any need to delete. Deleting hides it from most users, going against our core value of transparency, and in this case, for little good reason. It's also a nasty thing for the editor to see if they ever return (and, yeah, I see contribution histories every single week with three-year gaps). A little off-topic, but I'm also with Smokey Joe about Ricky's weak deletion nominations, such as this one, where Ricky failed to note that the person in this draft has a different year of birth and sport than the article he claimed it duplicated. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a non-admin close, so any admin can reopen it. That said, it's also clearly in terms of policy and discussion. Also, don't see how it matters either way. So Endorse as proper closure, "eh" as to the issue. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate closure and leave for an admin. The fact that it has come here means it is inherently unsuitable for a non-admin closure. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The redirect conclusion was perfectly fine (and a variety of other decisions would also have been so) but I can hardly see it was "beyond doubt a clear keep" so an admin should have done the close according to the WP:Non-admin closure essay. However, these days at MFD few people pay much attention to essays, guidelines or policies, as the nominator here knows, so this particular close was a rather minor infringement. And, yes, any admin could have reopened it or, it would seem, carry out a U5 speedy deletion if they had felt in that sort of mood. Thincat (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A U5 is troutworthy. Drafts are rather obviously not covered by that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The content survived both an AfD and a MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. WP:CSD#U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions. Process is important. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pinging User:Ricky81682 and User:MSGJ who closed the two discussions. The matter is being discussed with User:JzG who performed the speedy deletion under the undocumented G14 criterion (U5 was a typo). Thincat (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does JzG claim that U5 was a typo? And what is this about an undocumented G14? If it's not documented then it doesn't exist ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete the userpage improperly deleted. WP:TROUT the WP:GAME players and deleting admin who did not take enough care to respect policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:JzG#User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp is unimpressive. JzG is clearly expressing personal opinion not consistent with policy or traditional leeway in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointless. Abandoned draft by a user who left the building long ago, having made precisely no contribution to the project other than this draft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indefinite repository for promotional user pages. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Citing IAR here. It wasnt deleted at MFD or AFD due to process wonkery despite it failing to demonstrate any degree of notability - despite repeated requests for someone to do so. As it is unambiguously a promotional non-article in userspace, CSD-U5 should apply regardless of the ridiculous postering over the move from draft to article and back to userspace. There is also a reasonable argument that the closer of the AFD caused this mess in the first place by userfying it rather than deleting it on the quality of the arguments for its deletion at AFD. As it stands undeleting it due to it technically being an infraction of CSD-application does in no way improve the encyclopedia, which makes it a prime candidate for applying IAR. I will also point out point 6 in the box at the top of this page 'Deletion review is not for arguing technicalities'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean "stuff the need for consensus decision making, the admins know how to run the project"? And what is the difference between this and the rest of old userpages? Are they all to be deleted by an IARing admin without discussion?

  Just wanting to remember, can we temp Undelete to see what we are talking about? Is it an old draft (not U5-able), or was it promotion (surely the mfd nom has the onus to say so?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you want to go that route, the consensus at AFD was that it should have been deleted, with the two 'userfy' voters offering very weak arguments against two strong ones. The weak ones based on technicalities like the above, and the other admitting it doesnt pass GNG (the main argument to delete) but should be userfyed 'in case references turn up'. Which is a terrible rationale when it would be userfyed to an inactive user - they are unlikely to be looking into getting any refs anytime soon. But to answer your other question, yes, generally old stale userpages that are clearly promotional and have no real hope of being turned into legitimate articles should be deleted by one of Wikipedia's deletion processes, be it CSD, MFD or AFD. Arguing under which technical process to do it, and in the meantime borking them all, is precisely why Deletion Review says 'dont use to argue technicalities'. Its also why IAR exists - for when process breaks down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at these debates it appears that for some people all processes for deleting these pages are "wrong", because Wikipedia is apparently supposed to host them indefinitely in the pious hope of the Second Coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon, or the return of the user whose sole act was to create these advertisements, whichever happens sooner. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undeleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: Aware of the irony of discussing the wording of IAR, I would note that IAR says that a rule can be ignored if it "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". How does deleting stale userspace drafts improve or maintain Wikipedia? What tangible benefit does such a deletion bring to the project? A2soup (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Doesn't qualify as a U5 for two reasons. A) It's a draft article and therefore U5 doesn't apply and B) Per CSD U5 can't be applied to an article that has survived a deletion discussion. Further, there is no clear reason that deleting this helps the encyclopedia, making any IAR argument moot. Or at least no one has yet to even attempt to provide such a reason. Finally, even if someone does come up with a reason for IAR, speedy deletion is almost always a bad place for IAR--one admin should in general not be making deletion decisions unless it's on a class of things we've got clear consensus to delete. If you want to start (okay, continue) to delete things like this via speedy deletion, you need to get consensus to do so and get it added to CSD. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A "draft article" by a user who registered, created the "draft article", and vanished, never to be seen again. In other words, a promotional abuse of Wikipedia user space. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  So your opinion on the matter trumps our definition of U5, the CSD rule that you can't U5 something that made it though MfD, and the opinions of those that !voted and closed the MfD? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you have done the same if it had been created in mainspace and gone similarly unnoticed, for you to stumble upon five years later? —Cryptic 17:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @User:Hobit the only thing happening is a push by a few editors to clear up a backlog at [1]. Deleting stale userspace drafts is not new or novel - it has been happening since the early days of the site. Eventually 100% of them are dealt with somehow as can be seen in the counter page I linked. I took a sample of 1000 userspace drafts [2] and found nearly 2/3rds were outright deleted, plus many more blanked, or redirected to mainspace. I'd estimate about 5-10% are promoted to mainspace, and finding these good pages is a good reason to work the maintenance category. Another good reason is that process finds a lot of promotion, outright SPAM, hoaxes, attack page, violations of person privacy, inappropriate copies of mainspace articles etc. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Attack pages and privacy issues seem like serious problems worth addressing. Userspace spam and promotion seem like minor issues (are userspace drafts even indexed by Google, if so, maybe we could just noindex any that are problematic?). Copies of mainspace articles are generally supposed to turn into redirects I think and in any case are rarely harmful. And even if deleting all this is worthwhile, why is this important enough to people to have these out-of-process actions (U5 used for drafts, U5 used on things kept at MfD) done? And even WP:GAMING by moving drafts not ready for mainspace into mainspace? Surely cleanup isn't worth that level of disruption (those things have been the subject to discussion at at least a dozen different places)? And if those drafts _really_ do need to go, why not propose the needed changes (or clarifications) at CSD? Hobit (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Again. This absurd game playing by Godsy and Cryptic and others needs to stop. A non-contributor creates a page that does not pass GNG and disappears. 52 reasons are trotted out to keep this cruft. Go improve the encyclopedia and stop this insane quest to get in the way of cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this clean up is hurting a lot more than it is helping. Could you explain how deleting userspace drafts is helping the encyclopedia? To me it seems to be:
    • Taking up a lot of time by those going on this spree (which it's your time to spend, I get, but if you can use that argument with respect to Godsy and Cryptic, it seems not unreasonable to bring it up in response).
    • Deleting potentially useful material and driving away potential contributors
    • Causing problems by pushing our rules and standards of behavior to the point that others feel the need to step in. This out-of-process deletion is a good example of such pushing.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know why deleting all these helps the encyclopedia, let alone can justify these out-of-process actions. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The deletion was clearly out of process, and the given reason of U5 was invalid. This is also not a case where IAR should be applied. Showing users that consensus will be respected, that policy will be followed, and that admins are not above the rules is far more important than whether or not some poor-quality content sits in someone's user space for a while. Overruling a deletion discussion to delete content is something that should only be done if there is a truly compelling need (such as a legal issue like a copyright violation), and certainly never should be done just because you disagree with the consensus reached in the discussion. To the people who want this deleted, you can always try MFD again after enough time passes, which would be the proper, policy-based way to get this deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn of the U5 and even weaker return to mainspace and relist at AFD. The issue was at the AFC discussion. Obviously biased but I closed the MFD as properly based upon the discussion there. The AFD was properly started by me now that the page was in mainspace. Different standards apply to different spaces (see the MFD discussions regarding drafts and userspace drafts). Other than speculation that this was coordinated, it was not and there's no evidence it was actually moved for the purposes of suggesting it for deletion. Had I not filed the AFD, the page would likely have remained in mainspace for now showing that Legacypac's move would have been futile and pointless. I don't know what would have happened but the AFD however was closed in three days when there were two people supporting userification and two suggesting outright deletion. There is no requirement that pages be userified so let the full discussion pan out. A full AFD could have kept the page there, moved it to draftspace, re-userified it (why userify back to a user who hasn't been around in years is beyond me) or deleted it outright. U5 doesn't fit as this is a plausible draft even if it is purely promotional and the editor hasn't edited anything else. The problem is you have people who are set on opposing deleting any old drafts at all which is fine but other than that small clique which is dominating and distorting MFD discussions (while edit warring at WP:UP to get it protected), the vast majority of people wouldn't support keeping this around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean Weak overturn of the U5 and relist at MfD? You can't take a userspace draft to AfD can you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it should be returned to mainspace as the AFD was wrongly closed and the U5 was wrong. That way, I have zero fault any of this. :) Realistically, second alternative is overturn U5 and start a new MFD if people want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The move to mainspace was an integral part of the collective abuse of the deletion process, the central part to Legacypac's WP:GAME. Your authoring of the WikProject Abandoned Drafts mission, encouragement of legacypac's recklessness, even pointing out new WP:GAME tactics, and peripheral support when challenged, make you the other half of the WP:TAGTEAM. The page is a good draft, but it is not ready for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tag team "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." This definitely applies to Legacypac and Ricky81682, who are the only two agressive implementers of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts unauthorized mission to clean out all old drafts from userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've accused me of that multiple times and no one person has supported your claim. We're at ANI for the second, maybe third time based on your accusations and no one has found any merit to them. Are you just going to keep repeating it and hope that someone will give it credence? Were we working with Guy who actually deleted the page? You do realize that I closed the MFD discussion as keep right? If this was my plan, it's probably the dumbest way to do it since I could have just pulled the U5 card and deleted it outright. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It remains my considered opinion. You are legacypac's enabler. Nothing you have done is indefensible, but you are involved with Legacypac's disruption. As a closer, you have been closing very well. A good closer closes in a way reflecting the discussion and not reflecting their own opinion. You are a good admin. I criticise only your normal editor role in authoring and pushing the mission of WikiProject Abandoned drafts ahead of community consensus, leading those you influence into breaking firm policy rules, especially WP:CSD, and disruptive inappropriate page moves from userspace to mainspace.

Yes, I have met Guy, a good but opinionated admin. He has expressed a strong disdain for retention of old inappropriate userpages, but appears to have little concern that the cleaning is doing more damage that it is worth. He in one comment fails to distinguish G11 applicable material from old drafts of some potential. This DRV is appropriate reviewing both the deletion by Guy, and the abuse or failure of the deletion process, specifically the manner by which the consensus at MfD can be bypasses bu a bad faith to mainspace. That WP:GAME should be repudiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. A U5 after any keep result at a community board flies right in the face of the reasons CSD exist and the spirit of Pillar #4. @JzG: quit (ab)using the tools to supervote. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a compromise proposal: you suggest a process that will remove this crap, and I'll follow it. There is absolutely no defensible reason for keeping it, after all, so all we should care about is the most expeditious way of getting rid of it. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The suggestion is to ban the editors who are out to destroy perfectly good content just because an editor is taking a break from editing. People have returned after a decade or even longer so we should focus on WP:RETENTION not destroying content. 166.176.56.155 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't retain an editor who came here once, years ago, wrote a spam article, and then buggered off never to be seen again. The idea that it's "Perfectly good content" is fatuous: if it's perfectly good then move it to mainspace and let it stand or fall on its merits. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How about you propose a process and see if you can get consensus. That's how things are supposed to work around here... Hobit (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll propose one since I see these debates as completely pointless. PROD for userspace. Articles in userspace can be proposed for deletion if the editor in question hasn't edited in 2 years (say), they won't be deleted if the user who has them in userspace objects. After deletion any user in good standing can object, at which point it'll be moved to their userspace. Simples. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually that might not be a bad idea. I would support something of this nature. Perhaps take it to WP:VPI or WP:VPR? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Misuse of U5 to perform a deletion against consensus. An enormous amount of time and energy has been wasted in the sustained campaign to delete this utterly harmless draft, despite clear and consistent opposition from the editing community. The blatant misuse of U5 should be overturned as a clear reminder that administrators are subject to consensus, and that WP:IAR has limits. Thparkth (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. A page which survives multiple XfDs is plainly unsuitable for speedy deletion. Even a cursory review of the deleted text shows that no reasonable, competent, good faith editor could find that U5 applies. Clear and patent abuse by the deleting admin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn even without the XfD keeps this is clearly not an appropriate use of U5. U5 is intended for content which is not related to Wikipedia's goals. Like it or not this was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article and encyclopedia articles are very much related to Wikipedia's goals. Nor has anyone been able to articulate anything wrong with it other than the fact that the subject isn't notable, which isn't part of WP:NOT. I don't see endorsing this on IAR grounds as a good idea, as deleting the draft isn't likely to do any particular good and an endorsement would encourage other administrators to abuse U5 or to disregard the results of deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 15:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trout. As it says at WP:CSD, Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria. It is mind-boggling that this was speedy deleted after surviving two deletion discussions. Our deletion process is not perfect. Sometimes we'll get it wrong. That's not an excuse for admins to just do whatever the heck they want when things don't go their way. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McGee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Individual is notable - original page lacked up to date information about current work. 217.138.30.116 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll need to provide sources that show this individual is indeed notable by Wikipedia's standards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative professional: http://www.tonymcgee.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/dance/3557796/Tony-McGee-Diva-boot-camp.html http://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/london-fashion-show-60-years-of-fashion-photography/ http://www.creativeboom.com/photography/fashion-show-60-years-of-fashion-photography-in-the-making/ http://www.atlasgallery.com/atlas.php http://www.amazon.co.uk/Swans-1-Dream-Tony-McGee/dp/0957380100/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355824944&sr=8-2 http://www.winnicott.org.uk/beautiful-book-by-leading-photographer-tony-mcgee-benefits-the-the-winnicott-foundation http://everything.explained.today/Anthony_McGee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.30.116 (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Telegraph one is a good source - as it is an independant article by a reliable source about the subject. The rest of those are either not independant (primary source), have a COI, or are passing mentions (about a show where some of his work is on display). I would say given he has had exhibitions dedicated to his work, had (non-self) published books, and had his work displayed in other exhibitions, he passes the GNG. But I suspect the best sources will be in trade publications rather than the general press. As a fashion photographer generally the emphasis will be on the model and the stylist/designer, rather than who took the photos. I will say its borderline because of stuff like this - individual photos can be quite well-known (I have seen that Kate Moss one in lots of places, but its used about Kate Moss, not McGee). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you - I will make sure any links in the page are up to date and relate to primary sources. What is the next step for the page to be reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.30.116 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an admin undelete and move Anthony McGee to Draft:Anthony McGee for 217.138.30.116 and any other interested editors to work on? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave the adminhelp in case another admin is willing to undelete, but the deleted article seems to me far too promotional: "...McGee's exquisite photographs of the aspiring dancers... These images have been collected in the beautiful new book... McGee offered Londoners the chance to feel like a supermodel. McGee has opened a studio in Knightsbridge Harrods Urban Retreat to give the public the celebrity photo-shoot treatment. The experience includes a makeover and hair styling followed by a shoot with the photographer.... " etc. I think they would be more likely to make an acceptable article by starting from scratch and following Uncle G's advice:

"...don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write."

JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm declining this too; the bulk of the article is a mishmash of copyvios cut-and-paste from online reviews. —Cryptic 08:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both for reviewing the deleted article. Based on it being a copyright violation, I agree with not restoring it. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]