This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Comment Note that the article survived a prior AfD and is not eligible for speedy deletion of any sort, including G4, per WP:CSD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a very extreme interpretation of CSD as it was deleted after the second AFD so you cannot possibly argue that it is wrong to G4 something because there was a prior discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Very bad faith not to mention AfD #2, which resulted in a delete, clemens. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to assume that you missed AfD #2. Because otherwise, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, any article that survives at least one AfD can be recreated at will. I'm not going to mention specific articles, but anyone with any sense of Wikipedia's history will know what I'm talking about and why that this is an incredibly bad idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • To reply to all three at once: 1) It's not extreme, it's a plain reading of WP:CSD, which says, and has for some time now, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." It could say, but does not, "If a page as survived an immediately prior deletion discussion". A previous discussion, at WT:CSD, failed to achieve consensus for a change to this wording just a couple of months ago. Thus, it doesn't matter how many additional deletion discussions have happened, per the current wording of CSD, it wasn't eligible. No assumption of bad faith or overlooking the second deletion discussion is necessary to my point, because a subsequent deletion discussion, closed as delete, doesn't erase the first one. If there hadn't even been a second discussion, just an outright G4 without any prior deletion AfD, this would be an entirely different conversation. Spartaz and Tarc, you are welcome to post appropriate retractions and apologies. IronGargoyle, you bring up a good point, but one that can be dealt with without needing a change to CSD: if there has been a previous deletion discussion survived, then one that an article should be deleted, it may then be appropriate to discuss WP:SALTing. Absent that, the CSD process expects that once something has been kept in a deletion discussion, it will forever after get the benefit of an AfD discussion. That's not so unreasonable or extreme: if consensus can change, then the expectation that consensus can change back does not require much imagination. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Previous discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#G4 clarification. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • This might need separate discussion. Let's just say that I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation where, and only where, (1) the article in question is a BLP, or (2) the most recent deletion has been confirmed via DRV. I agree with Jclemens' interpretation in other cases, because for low-risk material has been kept once and then deleted once, then it's reasonable to presume the matter's borderline and the consensus could have changed again.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I think you're right that this needs a separate discussion, S Marshall. Thank you to Jclemens for pointing out that language in the preamble of the CSD policy. My thoughts, however, are that specific criteria overrule general principles (but I could see how a reasonable person could disagree on this point). If we leave G4 relatively toothless for multiple-AfD articles, as Jclemens would suggest, it doesn't encourage the improvement of the article (and over time our editorial criteria should become stronger). I don't think it's unreasonable that we should expect ANY article to be substantively improved for restoration if it fails ANY AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
            • When we prevent G4 for multiple AfDs where one was a keep, almost all will be one keep and one delete and there is no reason to suppose the later decision invariably the better. It would not discourage the improvement of articles--repeated re-creation without improvement often leads to salting at the subsequent afd. The idea is that if a prior AfD any time said keep, then it is not a rationally incontestable deletion, for at least one closer thought otherwise. Multiple AfDs bias the process to deletion; this decreases the bias, but it is still be biased that way. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
              • The problem is that denying G4 in multiple-AfD cases relegates the later AfDs into near meaninglessness. It turns them into a glorified PROD. I also don't think that it necessarily biases the process towards deletion as you assert. Consider that many repeated nominations attract speedy keep !votes. In many cases, this is despite legitimate flaws in the article that should indeed warrant deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
                • No, repeated deletion via AfD sets the stage for SALTing. SALTing is even a better outcome than endlessly repeated deletions per G4, if the same unacceptable content is repeatedly submitted by different users. (If it is the same user, you have a behavioural issue, not a CSD issue.) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I agree about the merits of SALTing, SmokeyJoe. In common practice though, SALTing is applied following the course of a speedy deletion (i.e. CSD G4), so it doesn't seem like good practice to take that point away. Now, I do think that CSD G4 is often misapplied (and consequently reviewed at DRV), but that is more of a function of failure to review past revisions in cases where there is substantive improvement of the articles in question. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
                • (moved from specific article discussion) I don't think it does. Repeated AfDs tend to have an air of stare decisis about them, where a nominator is expected to put forth a compelling argument why the previous consensus was incorrect. Failing a good rationale (and given adequate AfD participation), the decision is often reconfirmed by the new AfD. Thus, there is some amount of churn on repeated nominations, but not significantly more or more futile when a previous deletion discussion has been "keep" or "delete". Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse per IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 and Generalia specialibus non derogant (need a separate article for that). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that IronGargoyle's interpretation may be based on a fear of what can happen with extreme cases. I think what IronGargoyle may have had in mind is a certain often-AfD'd BLP about a man whose initials are DB, or similar cases, and in those cases he has a truly excellent point.

  However, hard cases make bad law, and the slippery slope argument is a kind of informal fallacy. DGG's remark above is very cogent. If we decide that an article that's once been deleted at AfD can be G4'ed ad infinitum thereafter, then are we not overruling the principle that consensus can change? Speedy deletion should surely be reserved for blindingly obvious cases, and material that's survived AfD at one point may be assumed not to be blindingly obvious. In those cases G4 should surely be restricted to copy/paste recreations, or other extremely similar recreations, of the deleted material.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Now that this has been copied over into this forum I will post my fuller views here. Jclemens' interpretation of G4 is not consistent with the words of G4 nor a common sense application of G4 in light of its purpose. It would permit an article to be recreated at any time after a clear consensus to delete it, without any improvement. The view that if there have been multiple discussions with different outcomes means the article is marginal and should be ineligible for speedy deletion overlooks (1) consensus not only changes, it gets better over time as our decision-making processes mature; and (2) "no consensus defaults to keep" is the mechanism we have to ensure that genuinely marginal articles are kept (DGG's claims of a "bias" to deletion are rendered nonsensical by this defaulting). The community's consensus should always be measured, definitively, by the outcome of the most recent consensus-building process. Now of course consensus can change to inclusion, but we have mechanisms to deal with that: either the article can be substantially improved and avoid G4, or a DRV can be brought to question the previous consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• What do you understand DGG's point to be, Mkativerata? (DGG's given in shorthand here something that he's explained at great length elsewhere, so misunderstanding is very possible.) I believe that what DGG's saying is far from nonsensical. It seems to me to follow from Wikipedia's custom and practice at AfD that an article that's put through AfD enough times is going to be deleted regardless of its merits, simply because the outcome of an AfD depends so much on who shows up to discuss it, and (dare I say it) whether it's a deletionist who closes it, too. After about five or six AfDs the probability of at least one "delete" consensus approaches unity, irrespective of the actual content under consideration.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I just don't accept the proposition. Perhaps I have more faith in AfD participants and closing admins to make the right calls and not treat AfD as a game than you and DGG. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's interesting, given your frequent participation at DRV. I find your trust in your fellow Wikipedians heartwarming, and I admire your ability to see so many DRVs without losing faith in the AfD process. But personally I find that my own participation at DRV has led me to believe the proportion of bad decisions is unacceptably high.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to find most bad calls at DRV are on speedy deletions; very few AfD closes get overturned and when they do it's often for a reason unrelated to the closing admin's performance. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Are you talking about bad calls occurring at AfD/Speedy that get reviewed at DRV? Or are you talking about bad calls by DRV closers? In either case, I don't share your cynicism, S Marshall. If it is the former you are concerned about, I think the opposite is actually happening. I could be misreading things, but I perceive a noticeable decrease in the number of pages that show up at DRV on a daily basis, versus several years ago. Other areas of Wikipedia may be a worse battleground now, but I don't think that is true at DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the former. DRVs are generally closed well, even when I don't agree with the outcome.

  I think "cynicism" is perhaps a bit strong. I'm concerned about FairProcess but the main reason I participate in DRV is because I don't believe AfD closers always get it right. I think the proportion of bad closes to good ones could be improved. And should be improved. I feel our (largely well-meaning) admin corps contains individuals who occasionally rush AfD closures a bit too much, and this bears watching. I also think that sometimes, the discussion itself is inadequate or fails to find an important point. I don't accept that this is "cynicism" and I'm somewhat surprised that others who participate in DRV don't seem to see it that way—why else participate in DRV?

  I agree that there are fewer pages showing up at DRV than a few years ago but I think this correlates with the decline in the number of new editors that Wikipedia's experiencing (which is itself a worrying problem and I think it's partly because most of the important articles have been written now, but also partly because after so many years of WP:CREEP new participants can't make head nor tail of the labyrinthine bureaucracy we've built up and they give up.) I think, too, there's less willingness to discuss administrative decisions because they're increasingly seen as beyond appeal. And I've just seen evidence that there are administrators who think that too. Last night, an administrator came to my talk page apparently in order to tell me that he agreed with my non-admin closure of an AfD, so he wasn't going to reverse me. (Peculiar.) His opinion seemed to be that only administrators are allowed judge consensus. In the Wikipedia I remember joining, the rule was that anyone can judge consensus but only administrators are allowed to delete material.

  In short, I think we're inadvertently evolving towards a culture where administrators are no longer ordinary users with extra tools, and have become mandarins. DRV is an important counter to that, and the decline in the number of cases being brought here is of concern to me because of that. I'm even more anxious to see that anyone who comes here goes away feeling that they've had a fair hearing and the closure has been properly examined rather than simply rubber-stamped.—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with Mkativerata 21:42, 6 November 2010 "The community's consensus should always be measured, definitively". Consensus is not measurable definitively, short of unanimously, and consensus is not unanimity. Requiring definitive consensus would prevent timely decision making. AfDs often close with sparse input. An old AfD represents consensus only per WP:SILENCE. If a subsequent AfD comes to a consensus that the previous Afd was not (or is no longer) correct, then consensus is clearly found in only the latter AfD. Arguments in the former AfD must be addressed in the latter.

However, I do, like Mkativerata, have faith in experienced-wikipedian AfD participants and closing admins. Inaccurate presentation of facts, or policy, or bad faith arguments, and bad closing, are all resoundingly counseled as required by DRV discussions, and such problems are not the norm.

Most admins seem know good content and to readily recognize when a new re-creation should, or should not be G4-ed. But should anyone disagree with the deletion, and the G4 deleting admin insists or doesn't respond, then WP:DRV welcomes such questions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• The intent/purpose of the criteria is the key thing,, given these pages get edited/tweaked all the time and those tweaks can in subtle ways alter the meaning, getting tied up in precise wording is pointless, not to mention policy is descriptive not prescriptive. CSD in generals purpose is to allow immediate removal of material where it is a broad agreement aren't "permitted". G4 as a specific criteria is to prevent recreation of material where a deletion debate determined it wasn't "appropriate" for wikipedia. In that intent I cannot see any difference between something allowed to be kept once (or no consensus) and that always deteled. The plain intent of the criteria seems clear to me.

That "consensus can change" would be undermined is a nonsensical argument to me. I can see it (though disagree) with relation to G4 as a whole, but not relative to this loophole. Are we saying "consensus can change only if we once decided to keep, or couldn't reach a consensus, however if we decide it should be deleted in all discussions, then consensus can't change...", of course not, the principal of consensus can change should hold in either case and if we see G4 as a restriction on that then G4 itself is the problem regardless of deletion debate outcomes. That said "consensus can change" as I've said before as a bare argument with no "evidence" that it has is a rather impotent argument. We wouldn't/shouldn't entertain relisting of items for deletion in case consensus has changed since last time around, nor should we in terms of recreation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to reinforce my comments in the DRV. Its ridiculous process to argue that you can't G4 something deleted at AFD because an earlier discussion was keep. Stuff gets kept all the time that should be deleted and standards have moved significantly over the last few years. Something kept as notable 4-5 years ago because enough people said its notable would be deleted now because the community has moved on and users now expect actual sources to demonstrate notability rather the assurances they exist. If there is a problem with a G4 DRV can easily send any new sources for discussion and I would expect admins to have the sense to AFD rather the G4 if there is an improvement in sourcing anyway. Anything that add additional hurdles to G4 is process for process sake adding unnecessary complexity to an already unwieldy and confusing set of conflicting rules and regulations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's quaint that you think it's ridiculous, but it also happens to be the clear wording straight from WP:CSD. Several other editors, besides just me, have explained why it makes sense, and why it's not the tragedy you think it must be. More importantly, you appear to be advocating that DRV judge the content of an article, rather than the process. Is that your understanding of DRV? Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Two things relating to this. First, the words of WP:CSD are mutable. I hold, therefore, that quoting from it is not necessarily meaningful, but rather the intent behind the words is. It is my reading of CSD that the intent is to prevent deletions by it that are even vaguely contentious, regardless of all external circumstances, as you are suggesting. If this interpretation no longer has consensus, that is in itself an issue to correct, but this is not the best place to be so doing.
      Second, I have never been lead to believe that the job of DRV is anything other than correct mistakes, regardless of where the mistakes originate, especially given that few new users who bring issues to DRV read the instructions and "What is this page for?" section. It strikes me as silly not to consider the content of the article, just as it strikes me as silly not to consider the processes by which it was deleted before being brought here. Both are important, in differing amounts based on the exact circumstances, and neither should be viewed in isolation, lest the results here be so divorced from reality as to be unusable.
      On a side note, the above debate seems to highlight a problem with the wording of parts of WP:CSD rather than anything else. Perhaps a discussion at WT:CSD would be fruitful? lifebaka++ 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I ask about process vs. content, because the "DRV is not AfD round two" mantra is often used against editors who point out legitimate deficiencies in argumentation in an appealed (hence previously closed) AfD. I have no particular opinion, but there are a number of users who seem to alternatively argue "The process was valid, we're not here to revisit the outcome" or "The process was wrong, but the outcome was still valid". Both cannot be right: either DRV is the point of appeal of all encyclopedia-damaging outcomes, or it's not. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Jclemens, could you point out these "Several other editors" supporting your interpretation? Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
          • (Moved and indented the above to keep threads together) I said "seem" vs. providing specific examples for a couple of reasons: it's a side topic that I think should be solved in generalities vs. accusing any particular editor(s) of improper behavior (especially since the "impropriety" is up for discussion), and because I don't keep track of who said what when, so what you're getting is an impression, rather than a specific recollection. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • DRV is inevitably going to become a bit process driven but policy is what we do as much as what is written and I think Lifebaka has it right. The issue is that G4 needs a better description not that we should restore and AFD a BLP without any realistic reliable sources when it has already been deleted on notability grounds and nothing has changed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • "BLP deleted on notability grounds" is an argument for what, exactly? To me, it seems obvious that such a matter can afford more debate than a BLP deleted on BLP grounds, yes? Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I think that only the most recent deletion discussion should be considered for G4 eligibility. If the page is recreated unchanged, the last XfD still applies, regardless of whether there was a non-delete discussion in its history. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is the definition of "unchanged". If you're talking a character-for-character recreation, I agree. If you're talking about a different article which "doesn't address the cause for the original deletion", that's more of a subjective matter, and subjective matters should generally go to AfD rather than a speedy. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, in some cases, the wording of G4 has been interpreted to allow rather large amounts of admin discretion inconsistent with CSD in general. I think any problems there should be addressed on a case-by-case basis at DRV. My objection to this "survived a prior deletion discussion" loophole is that it doesn't differentiate identical recreations – any G4 (any speedy except G12) is invalid, period. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'll admit I only skimmed through this discussion, but are people seriously arguing that you can't G4 anything if a deletion discussion on that page has ever ended in keep? That's plain ridiculous. Let me show you why in an example that such an interpretation of G4 cannot work. Article A is kept in 2005 in a 2 keep, 2 delete discussion where the closing admin merely looked at the numbers and not strength of arguments, but the discussion was never brought to DRV. Let's go further and say that Wikipedia policy has changed since the debate and the article unambiguously would not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion by today's standards. Let's say in 2006 another AfD is started, with a unanimous group of 10 users all giving well reasoned arguments for why it should be deleted. Now, in 2010, someone recreates the page substantially identical to the original. Someone would seriously suggest we cannot G4 the article? Let's pretend that such an interpretation of G4 is the rule. We bring it to AFD, wait 7 days, and finally get it deleted. Then another user (or the same user) comes along and re-creates the article, proclaiming it cannot be deleted without a deletion discussion. AfD, 7 days, repeat. Basically this interpretation would allow a user or users to game the system to keep pages on Wikipedia indefinitely, as they could be immediately recreated after deletion so long as the page has ever had a keep result. This interpretation cannot be in the spirit of G4, regardless of the wording, and as such I will continue to G4 things that have been kept at one point, so long as the most recent discussion has resulted in deletion. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't stuff beans up your nose, Vega. It hurts. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I weighed the beans issue in posting that, but if my interpretation of G4 is correct it won't be an issue, and if it isn't correct and someone does that, the community will be essentially forced to adopt my (and I believe the wider community's) interpretation of G4 to prevent it. And, since it makes much more sense, that's a good thing. VegaDark (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Go back and read the part you skipped. Executive summary: The prevention against repeated/abusive recreation isn't G4, it's SALTing. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I personally only salt after a minimum of 3 previous deletions, which would leave 2 free recreations, or 14 days of gaming the system assuming the xfd was closed on time. Also, salting wouldn't prevent an admin recreating the page (which I admit would be extremely rare, but stranger things have happened). VegaDark (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, policy and guideline pages are generally supposed to follow common practice, and not usually the other way round. So if the text on this page doesn't reflect common practice, it should be changed. - jc37 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely. The problem is, in this and previous discussions, there's no consensus for a change: some would like the change in wording to be made to align with the practice they prefer, while others believe the applications of G4 in line with the desired (vs. current) wording to be inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is that people still believe that consensus = some discussion/straw poll. Consensus is reflected actually what we have done and continue to do as normal practice. Interestingly enough the change which move the CSD page towards that description here as the edit summary notes was done by one editor when no one engaged in discussion on it. It was further revised to add the clause regarding copyvio's again without any discussion. So by the logic that we need some discussions to form the consensus to change the actual illegitimate policy is the one currently written as essentially being the product of two editors. To be clear I don't believe it to be illegitimate in that as consensus is reflected due to the fact that is the common practice, as it the common practice that G4 is applicable regardless of older keep discussions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There was some timely – in my opinion, insufficient – discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 19#Recent edit. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Somehow missed that, I can't see any consensus in that discussion for the change made. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I found the original discussion, WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 18#Can we clarify.... Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Except that multiple discussions have failed to repudiate the 2007 change. Improper CSD is an interesting thing to consider, because there's a lot of "the process was wrong, but the article sucked so bad it really didn't even deserve an AfD..." opinion in DRV, such that you really don't have an overwhelming endorsement for the process. Every time I see it (twice now), I've brought this up, and consensus has never been against me yet. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • As I said I don't actually believe the 2007 change is illegitimate in that it refelects the practice adoped, i.e. it has consensus by virtue of what we do. Your comments about "so bad it didn't deserve an AFD" appears to be a strawman, we aren't talking about random deletion where no apparent criteria applies, but a specific circumstance against the agreed criteria of G4. I have never seen a discussion address the particular circumstance of G4 but supsect it's because that interpretation is particularly obtuse such that most admins wouldn't even consider it for a second. (I'd also note that relying on particular wording rather than spirit/purpose of policy tends to be called wikilawyering).--82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• As a heads up, I intend to send this dispute back to WT:Criteria for speedy deletion in the next few days, unless there is a sudden burst of activity here. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll see your proposal, and raise you a suggestion that we make it a full RfC and advertise it at WP:CENT to get a good, community-wide set of input. I endorse and understand the way it currently is worded, but don't think it will be the end of the world if it's changed. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Or we could just do it the way the change was done in the first place... Above "Except that multiple discussions have failed to repudiate the 2007 change." - it'll be for those who don't like it to gain consensus to change it back, since you appear to endorse that mechanism. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • 1) You're an IP. Register or log if you want to be taken seriously in a policy discussion. 2) The edit summary indicated that the change was discussed on talk without objections. 3) BRD if you want (and if you can--is it semiprotected?). I'll revert, and we're right back to where we are now. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Tut tut! If you aren't taking people seriously because they don't have accounts, then it is not they that need to change anything. Anyway, surely a Deletion Review regular would recognize 82.7.40.7? I know that I do, not least because of the disturbing number of times that we seem to be in agreement. ☺ I'd like xem to get an account too. But not because I don't take xem and what xe writes seriously, but because I'd find a name easier to remember than a number. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Anonymous editors are always welcome to improve articles, hence my emphasizing the word "policy". If a user doesn't want to self-identify, even pseudonymously, then his lack of investments undermines his expectation of input into site policy and governance, as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • (1) My status as an IP is irrelevant, I'm happy to accept that in certain areas I don't qualify for a vote (arbcom elections etc.), however in any discussion it's what's being said which is important not who is saying it, registered users can make as equally bad or good arguments as non registered. Frankly I couldn't care less if it makes my input lesser in your view, thankfully you don't speak for the whole of wikipedia yet. (2) The edit summary indicated no response, that's not a consensus and it wasn't a discussion as widely broadcast as you seem to be suggesting is appropriate for the subject matter. (3) Regarding just changing it, it wasn't a serious point as I've said many times now, the broad view of it I'm perfectly happy with and I believe has consensus by virtue of what is commonly enforced. I guess your confidence that your interpretation regarding G4 is widely supported isn't that great you think you could actually obtain consensus to implement it today, you'd rather rely on the "keep the status quo" mentality which is a much easier bar to meet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
          • To your last point, why on earth would any editor suggest that his own interpretation, consistent with current wording, expect any other treatment? There's no question in my mind that the biggest problem with CSD in general is the number of trigger-happy people who want to use it for things that don't merit it. In full disclosure, I was one of these when I was first highly active about three years ago. I've since come to understand the damage that bad CSDs can do, but many other editors and administrators are not as enlightened. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm not going to labour the point on policy forming any further, I guess you either can't see what I'm getting at or don't want to. On your other point once again the discussion is about the interpretation in regard to G4 when the previous AFD returned delete but one prior to that returned keep or no-consensus. Tyring to convert that into a discussion about CSD being applied incorrectly elsewhere is at best disingenuous. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • RfC, CENT, and anything else from WP:Publicising discussions is fine. I think that we should draft a combined presentation including both sides and release it for discussion all at once. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Super! If you have time to start it tomorrow, I should have time to formally write up my position tomorrow (about 16 hours from now...) Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#"survived a prior deletion discussion" RfC. Insert your position where indicated, and edit the common sections to your liking. Leave a <!-- comment --> noting if you're satisfied or if we need to discuss any wording. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I find it amusing that people think that we should keep quiet about some aspects of this because we don't want people stuffing beans up their noses. A little history should help: These speedy deletion criteria came about in the first place in part because people had already discovered how to tie Votes for deletion in knots through its own process. There really isn't anything to hide, here. Troublemakers knew how they could use the rules here to make trouble years ago. It wasn't exactly a secret unknown to the masses that if an article got deleted through VFD, they could just paste the wikitext back in and re-create the article afresh. (I've done my share of history-only undeletions in cases where people did that, in order that the edit history not falsely attribute the entire content to the re-creator. Indeed, some people contest Proposed Deletion after the fact in this very way.) There was a time in our history where MediaWiki didn't have creation protection. These mechanisms have been reactions, to people already knowing how to do the things that you're worried about talking about. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So are you suggesting that G4 should be eliminated in favor of create protection, now that we have Mediawiki create protection? Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And now's the time to call BEANS!—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No. The availability of both approaches allows one to tailor an approach to circumstances. I think that a choice of approaches is a good thing, here. There's a spectrum of circumstances, ranging from the innocent "Where did that article go that I wrote six months ago?" re-creation to the disruptive vandal who insists upon re-creating bad content on a non-subject. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Skomorokh 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)