Dremo (Musician) – Undeleted. There's majority support, but not a consensus, for the view that the articles were sufficiently similar to allow a G4 deletion. For such cases, the instructions read: "If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion)."' Sandstein 06:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dremo (Musician) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I recently created the above article, but it was deleted almost immediately, simply because some other article on the same topic has been previously deleted. This is an unfair reason, since I took time to create this article and cited it properly. I believe it should be assessed on its own right and not just speedily deleted based on some precedence by other accounts. Thank you. Haylad (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] The previous article was more detailed and much better referenced (to news articles rather than youtube/itunes links); yet it was deleted in 2016. I do not see anything notable added after 2016. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I looked at: Deleted revision of Dremo (as of 13 October 2016, at 20:41) by Filedelinkerbot Deleted revision of Dremo (Musician) (as of 18 May 2019, at 23:48) by Wgolf It's a close call, but I think substantially identical applies here. It's not word-for-word identical, or even sentence-for-sentence, but the gist is the same, as is much of the text. If there was any doubt, the generally crappy collection of references certainly tips the balance. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: Materialscientist is being dishonest by saying that the only sources cited in the created article was "youtube/itunes links". The only itunes link on that article was used to cite the discography. Meanwhile, the article cited 2 major interviews. One published by a major national newspaper and another by a major entertainment magazine. Furthermore, the subject has been featured by other major entertainment magazines like BellaNaija and Pulse. All of these establish notability and were cited in the article which he deleted. A simple search online shows good coverage as well. The 3 "youtube links" in the article, were links to shows featuring/focusing on the artiste, and were published by the offical youtube channels of major TV stations. The speedy deletion of this article was clearly rushed and truly unfair. Materialscientist is also being dishonest about the old article. I just checked, and the "news articles" were not in-depth coverage, but mostly mentions. Moreover, the article had other issues like COI. I don't see any similarities with that one and the new article. This new article, though not near perfect, deserves to stay, certainly not speedily deleted. Disclaimer: The creator of this article is a member of my community. After he informed me about his article being deleted and I checked it, I reached out to Materialscientist. He completely ignored my request for better explanation and review, and went on to delete my message from his talkpage. Then I advised Haylad to take this to DRV.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I haven't seen either of the two deleted articles, but I have seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo. This has the usual signs of a case of undisclosed paid editing, but that isn't the issue here. This has the usual signs of meatpuppetry, but the rule against meatpuppetry is incomprehensible, and that isn't the issue here anyway. This is a very clear case of gaming the system by disambiguating a title in order to try to wash away the rock salt and freeze the highway. The disambiguation was clearly done in order to game the system, because the time to have come here to Deletion Review was as soon as the title was salted, not after the end run via disambiguation was stopped. Even if the two articles are not substantially identical, and I trust the deleting admin that they are, the author should have been requesting this review on the up-and-up rather than after getting caught. Endorse, and create-protect in draft space also. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Personal attacks on an administrator are not a sign of a strong case. It is not useful to accuse another editor of being dishonest, even if the other editor is being dishonest. This looks like tag teaming, possibly by a paid editing shop. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] In one breathe, you accused me of personal attacks (for clarifying that the admin was skewing the truth), but then went on to accuse the article creator of gaming the system and for paid editing, and then me for meat-puppetry. Perhaps you should look in the mirror first. Like I stated here already, I am a community leader and I mentor several new users, trying to protect them from wiki predators and improper article deletions based on the known systemic bias that exists on this platform. He contacted me because he didn't understand how his article disappeared, without a discussion. I initially assumed good faith and reached out to the admin, but clearing my message without bothering to reply screams bad faith. The user didn't know about DRV or all of these "complicated process", until I directed him here. Trying to accuse me of meat-puppetry after I declared my relationship with the user is a very cheap shot. BTW, if you haven't checked through both articles, you shouldn't be making endorsements. Your vote is essentially not based on anything. Talk about tag teaming....Now, you sound more like the one sucking up to an admin just for the sake of it. Another need to look in the mirror.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment - User:Jamie Tubers - You didn't say that the administrator was skewing the truth. You said that the administrator was being dishonest. And why did you name the second article Dremo (Musician) when there isn't another Dremo? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the G4 speedy but I have no idea whether we should have this article. I'll accept on trust Roy's analysis but I can't follow his conclusion – if a recreated article is "... not word-for-word identical, or even sentence-for-sentence, but the gist is the same, as is much of the text" then it is not substantially identical to the original. Thincat (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment I would need a temp undelete to judge these articles (and don't really care that much) but assuming RoySmith's analysis is correct, I have no problem deleting on WP:G4. I don't read "sufficiently identical" to mean an article is immune from G4 just because the text was changed around. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] The wording of the criterion is extraordinarily contorted. For deletion the new article must be "sufficiently identical" and also it must not be "not substantially identical". Years ago I tried (and failed) to get the wording made less strict.[1] Thincat (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] As noted, it's not really clear what sufficiently identical means. In any case, I've tempundeleted both articles, so people can draw their own conclusions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) @Thincat: The consensus of that 2013 discussion was very clearly that G4 should be interpreted strictly (as all CSD criteria are intended to be) and that making it less strict would not benefit the encyclopaedia. I'm not aware of any consensus to the contrary since. It's been six years so if you want to see if consensus has changed feel free, but I recommend reading WP:NEWCSD before doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo. When re-creating an AfD-deleted article, you have to overcome the reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Pretty much per Amakuru below. G4 has to be a little more broad than an unaltered repost. A rewording shuffle of basically the same sources can't be sufficient to overcome an AfD and restart the process. I think the requirement should point to WP:THREE. We don't have the patience to examine so many poor sources, show us the best three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn speedy. I have looked at the two revisions prior to deletion and they were not substantially identical. They were similar, but there will always be a degree of similarity between two short biographies of the same person, and the standard required for G4 is much stricter than merely similarity. The most recent creation also clearly asserted significance so it's well above the A7 threshold. I'm not certain that the subject is notable, but there are sources that were not considered in the discussion three years ago, so this is a question that should be determined at AfD not through speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] I suspect it will be deleted at AfD, but given the time elapsed and the fact it sounds like it isn't a clear G4, I'd rather we overturn the speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The silly thing is, the original deletion discussion says "Mainly advertorial, cited sources are mostly videos" and yet the recreated article basically fell down the same holes. It looks to me like this guy is probably a household name in Nigeria, and as such should be fairly easy to write a neutral and properly sourced article about. But neither the original, nor the recreated version are it, and the admin was right to delete. Don't salt, though, because it hasn't been proven that he is not notable. — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I have struck my original pro forma Endorse and am endorsing the G4 based on a comparison of the two articles. The content of the two article is sufficiently similar that a reasonable person could characterize either article as a close paraphrase of the other article. This is the sort of case that G4 was intended to deal with, to avoid multiple duplicative deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse- Unfortunately, we have had to de facto loosen the "substantially identical" criterion of G4 to avoid people cynically re-creating deleted articles with only cosmetic changes and no attempt to address the original reason for deletion. I can't really fault RoySmith's actions here but it wouldn't faze me at all if it was undeleted and sent to AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse thank you for undeleting - the two most recent substantial drafts are, IMO, substantially identical, making the WP:G4 valid. I generally agree with Amakuru that notability may be present. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Entirely valid G4. T. Canens (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dremo (Musician) – Undeleted. There's majority support, but not a consensus, for the view that the articles were sufficiently similar to allow a G4 deletion. For such cases, the instructions read: "If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion)."' Sandstein 06:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I recently created the above article, but it was deleted almost immediately, simply because some other article on the same topic has been previously deleted. This is an unfair reason, since I took time to create this article and cited it properly. I believe it should be assessed on its own right and not just speedily deleted based on some precedence by other accounts. Thank you. Haylad (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article was more detailed and much better referenced (to news articles rather than youtube/itunes links); yet it was deleted in 2016. I do not see anything notable added after 2016. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I looked at:

Deleted revision of Dremo (as of 13 October 2016, at 20:41) by Filedelinkerbot

Deleted revision of Dremo (Musician) (as of 18 May 2019, at 23:48) by Wgolf

It's a close call, but I think substantially identical applies here. It's not word-for-word identical, or even sentence-for-sentence, but the gist is the same, as is much of the text. If there was any doubt, the generally crappy collection of references certainly tips the balance. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: Materialscientist is being dishonest by saying that the only sources cited in the created article was "youtube/itunes links". The only itunes link on that article was used to cite the discography. Meanwhile, the article cited 2 major interviews. One published by a major national newspaper and another by a major entertainment magazine. Furthermore, the subject has been featured by other major entertainment magazines like BellaNaija and Pulse. All of these establish notability and were cited in the article which he deleted. A simple search online shows good coverage as well. The 3 "youtube links" in the article, were links to shows featuring/focusing on the artiste, and were published by the offical youtube channels of major TV stations. The speedy deletion of this article was clearly rushed and truly unfair.

Materialscientist is also being dishonest about the old article. I just checked, and the "news articles" were not in-depth coverage, but mostly mentions. Moreover, the article had other issues like COI. I don't see any similarities with that one and the new article. This new article, though not near perfect, deserves to stay, certainly not speedily deleted.

Disclaimer: The creator of this article is a member of my community. After he informed me about his article being deleted and I checked it, I reached out to Materialscientist. He completely ignored my request for better explanation and review, and went on to delete my message from his talkpage. Then I advised Haylad to take this to DRV.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I haven't seen either of the two deleted articles, but I have seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo. This has the usual signs of a case of undisclosed paid editing, but that isn't the issue here. This has the usual signs of meatpuppetry, but the rule against meatpuppetry is incomprehensible, and that isn't the issue here anyway. This is a very clear case of gaming the system by disambiguating a title in order to try to wash away the rock salt and freeze the highway. The disambiguation was clearly done in order to game the system, because the time to have come here to Deletion Review was as soon as the title was salted, not after the end run via disambiguation was stopped. Even if the two articles are not substantially identical, and I trust the deleting admin that they are, the author should have been requesting this review on the up-and-up rather than after getting caught. Endorse, and create-protect in draft space also. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Personal attacks on an administrator are not a sign of a strong case. It is not useful to accuse another editor of being dishonest, even if the other editor is being dishonest. This looks like tag teaming, possibly by a paid editing shop. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one breathe, you accused me of personal attacks (for clarifying that the admin was skewing the truth), but then went on to accuse the article creator of gaming the system and for paid editing, and then me for meat-puppetry. Perhaps you should look in the mirror first. Like I stated here already, I am a community leader and I mentor several new users, trying to protect them from wiki predators and improper article deletions based on the known systemic bias that exists on this platform. He contacted me because he didn't understand how his article disappeared, without a discussion. I initially assumed good faith and reached out to the admin, but clearing my message without bothering to reply screams bad faith. The user didn't know about DRV or all of these "complicated process", until I directed him here. Trying to accuse me of meat-puppetry after I declared my relationship with the user is a very cheap shot.

BTW, if you haven't checked through both articles, you shouldn't be making endorsements. Your vote is essentially not based on anything. Talk about tag teaming....Now, you sound more like the one sucking up to an admin just for the sake of it. Another need to look in the mirror.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - User:Jamie Tubers - You didn't say that the administrator was skewing the truth. You said that the administrator was being dishonest. And why did you name the second article Dremo (Musician) when there isn't another Dremo? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the G4 speedy but I have no idea whether we should have this article. I'll accept on trust Roy's analysis but I can't follow his conclusion – if a recreated article is "... not word-for-word identical, or even sentence-for-sentence, but the gist is the same, as is much of the text" then it is not substantially identical to the original. Thincat (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would need a temp undelete to judge these articles (and don't really care that much) but assuming RoySmith's analysis is correct, I have no problem deleting on WP:G4. I don't read "sufficiently identical" to mean an article is immune from G4 just because the text was changed around. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the criterion is extraordinarily contorted. For deletion the new article must be "sufficiently identical" and also it must not be "not substantially identical". Years ago I tried (and failed) to get the wording made less strict.[1] Thincat (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, it's not really clear what sufficiently identical means. In any case, I've tempundeleted both articles, so people can draw their own conclusions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Thincat: The consensus of that 2013 discussion was very clearly that G4 should be interpreted strictly (as all CSD criteria are intended to be) and that making it less strict would not benefit the encyclopaedia. I'm not aware of any consensus to the contrary since. It's been six years so if you want to see if consensus has changed feel free, but I recommend reading WP:NEWCSD before doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo. When re-creating an AfD-deleted article, you have to overcome the reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much per Amakuru below. G4 has to be a little more broad than an unaltered repost. A rewording shuffle of basically the same sources can't be sufficient to overcome an AfD and restart the process. I think the requirement should point to WP:THREE. We don't have the patience to examine so many poor sources, show us the best three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy. I have looked at the two revisions prior to deletion and they were not substantially identical. They were similar, but there will always be a degree of similarity between two short biographies of the same person, and the standard required for G4 is much stricter than merely similarity. The most recent creation also clearly asserted significance so it's well above the A7 threshold. I'm not certain that the subject is notable, but there are sources that were not considered in the discussion three years ago, so this is a question that should be determined at AfD not through speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it will be deleted at AfD, but given the time elapsed and the fact it sounds like it isn't a clear G4, I'd rather we overturn the speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The silly thing is, the original deletion discussion says "Mainly advertorial, cited sources are mostly videos" and yet the recreated article basically fell down the same holes. It looks to me like this guy is probably a household name in Nigeria, and as such should be fairly easy to write a neutral and properly sourced article about. But neither the original, nor the recreated version are it, and the admin was right to delete. Don't salt, though, because it hasn't been proven that he is not notable. — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I have struck my original pro forma Endorse and am endorsing the G4 based on a comparison of the two articles. The content of the two article is sufficiently similar that a reasonable person could characterize either article as a close paraphrase of the other article. This is the sort of case that G4 was intended to deal with, to avoid multiple duplicative deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse- Unfortunately, we have had to de facto loosen the "substantially identical" criterion of G4 to avoid people cynically re-creating deleted articles with only cosmetic changes and no attempt to address the original reason for deletion. I can't really fault RoySmith's actions here but it wouldn't faze me at all if it was undeleted and sent to AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse thank you for undeleting - the two most recent substantial drafts are, IMO, substantially identical, making the WP:G4 valid. I generally agree with Amakuru that notability may be present. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Entirely valid G4. T. Canens (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.