List of the shortest rivers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was written like a listcruft of the shortest rivers, which means a subject of the shortest river is Roe River, which means a little of WP:LISTCRUFT. 180.214.232.91 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close likely a sock, and no reason given for review. Star Mississippi 02:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What about some of the shortest rivers works like the Indonesian river Tamborasi River and the Georgian river Reprua River, which of the two rivers in these two countries (Georgia and Indonesia), which looked like the shortest rivers, so overturn. 182.2.135.222 (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have semi'ed this to avoid the disruption that plagued the AfD. I've also alerted @Sandstein as the IP did not. Star Mississippi 10:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close per Star Mississippi Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

902 (PTV Bus) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Weren't enough sources to establish notability, this problem was addressed and resolved however the deletion still went through NotOrrio (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me see if I'm reading this right? NotOrrio created Route 902, Victorian Bus Route; it was brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route; after about twelve hours, NotOrrio, clearly discouraged, redirects it and tags it ((db-author)); and about a day and a half later, the afd is speedily closed on that basis. So far, so - well, not really "good", but no procedural problems, anyway.
  Meanwhile, a few hours before the first afd close, NotOrrio tries to start over with more sources at 902 (PTV Bus). It's brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/902 (PTV Bus) a day later (now well after the first afd's close), the nominator of the first afd tags it G4, and it's speedied.
  Clearly the G4's incorrect: this article's never had a full afd, even the abbreviated one wasn't closed as delete, and it was closed that way at the author's apparent request which had plainly been withdrawn by the act of recreation (not to mention bringing it here for review). Plus, the later version of the article had ten sources to the first version's three, and while I don't think they're sufficient - I'm not seeing any that aren't at least one of self-published, primary, or tangential - they still need to be examined at afd. Overturn and send it back. —Cryptic 06:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't agree with Cryptic. There was unambiguous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route to redirect. The fact that, as a result of NotOrrio trying to game the system by saying that they were accepting deletion, and then quietly re-creating it, that consensus was acted on earlierthan would otherwise have been the case, does not in any way detract from that consensus. The discussion was in effect closed as a SNOW close, and the consensus was not invalidated by that. Nor do I see it as remotely reasonable to thing that the closure can be invalidated by what Cryptic calls NotOrrio "withdrawing their permission" for the closure. What a wonderful license to disrupt deletion discussions we would be granting if we were to accept that as a procedure: "Oh dear, I see that this discussion isn't going my way. Never mind, I'll give "permission" for the discussion to be closed, and when that's been done I'll withdraw my "permission", and that will mean that I can bypass the discussion, and get my way, despite consensus against me, unless editors waste their time with another discussion". And make no mistake; this is just one of NotOrrio's many attempts to disrupt deletion discussions. There have also been removal of AfD notices from articles, blanking of AfD discussions (at least twice) and changing the AfD notification on an article's talk page to say that a discussion had been closed as "keep", despite the fact that NotOrrio knew full well that the discussion had not been closed. I see letting NotOrrio find they can get away with this kind of disruptive behaviour, and "withdraw" their "permission" for a discussion to be closed in line with its consensus, as utterly unconstructive, and I am greatly disappointed to see an administrator endorsing such a view.
2. On the other hand, ten years or more ago I learnt that arguing in a deletion review about whether a G4 deletion is valid is scarcely ever worth while, because there's such a huge diversity of opinion as to how much difference there has to be between the two versions of the page to invalidate it. For that reason I shall restore the deleted article, and it can be reconsidered at AfD. I shall therefore reverse my closure of the second deletion discussion. JBW (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • The operative part of G4 is "substantially identical to the deleted version" so no, it was never a valid G4 in the first place if Cryptic's summary is remotely accurate. ONE additional source invalidates a G4 and requires a new AfD, no matter how trivial, and gaming the system should be treated as a user conduct issue rather than inappropriately applying G4 to a not-substantially-identical new article. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • JBW undeleted the new version and relisted the second afd, so you can look for yourself. For my part, the main issue isn't the additional sources - they don't address the reasons for removal presented at the prior afd, so I'd normally view a g4 as within discretion - but that the article wasn't deleted at its deletion discussion, as required by the very first sentence at WP:G4. You can't G4 an article that's never been deleted before. Redirecting this version too, or reopening the old afd, or starting a new one was what was called for. —Cryptic 06:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There appears to be an open AFD. Does that address the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]