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.

Hi there, I don't believe there's much to this - but pages are being marked for speedy deletion in a manner that would have you think there's a Wikipedia Speedy Deletion Olympics going on. I had only left the page I orginally started for few hours without much progress when the first Speedy Deletion notice hit me... I've been working at a snail's pace today, just getting my head around the various workings of Wikipedia and throwing myself in the deep in, when I was blown away by yet another Speedy Deletion missile! The Kosta Nikas page is finally beginning to take shape - would you please be able to take the notice away and ask whoever's on patrol to please temper their enthusiasm for deletion.I concede that I really should have worked on this page as a draft within my user page.. but at least I've learnt that. Thankyou AS_Sydney (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well to be terribly blunt, after looking at some of your work, e.g. Kosta Nikas, you lack the competence to be creating articles at all. Editions should be put through some sort of Wiki-Boot Camp to prove they actually know the basics of formatting, how to identify and use reliable sources, and what the project's notability requirements are. Kosta Nikas is a mess; you uploaded a monstrously-large file, inserted it at full resolution (til another editor fixed it), cite no sources (imdb is not one) establish the notability of the subject, and to top it off there are what appear to be bare citation tags ([9], [10], [11]), etc...) throughout the article, which indicates you copy and pasted it from somewhere. This strips whatever attribution there was in the original. So you create a poorly-formatted, unsourced, possibly plagiarized article, and then have the gall to come complaining about Speedy Deletions? Tarc (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Another consideration is the rate at which gumph accumulates—when I looked at Special:NewPages just now, 69 new articles had been created in the last 60 minutes. They have to be triaged quickly. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV that may be of interest to WP:DRV participants. The question was: "Is there any support in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion or elsewhere for the position that an article restored under ((TempUndelete)) cannot be rewritten in mainspace?" Cunard (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you not keeping the question at DRV since temp undeletion is a courtesy by DRV regulars and the effect will be to fragment discussion. If you are going to start abusing the courtesy then you will find admins less willing to do this. You are starting to come across as very unreasonable when you don't get your own way and should perhaps consider stepping back and being less insistent when others disagree with you. Its starting to look a bit obsessive and that is not a good look for an editor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Temporary undeleted content should not be used during the course of the DRV discussion. If, however, you do make use of it, note that you are required by WP:COPYRIGHTS to keep the list of authors.

To do this, I recommend using the "Download as PDF" link, and including the attribution text provided, on any copy you make, which in this case would be:

"Seth Goldman (businessman) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth%20Goldman%20(businessman)?oldid=662891165 Contributors: Lockley, TexasAndroid, Afasmit, Spartaz, Matthew Fennell, Waacstats, DGG, Johnpacklambert, Gbawden, Coffee, Malcolmxl5, JL-Bot, Smashville, The Thing That Should Not Be, Cunard, Addbot, MrOllie, Tassedethe, WikiDan61, KERG, Erik9bot, Alzmarie, Jesse V., RjwilmsiBot, Bossanoven, Markiewp, Wgolf, Liam987, DoctorKubla, Bananasoldier, Bethesda36, Oriole85, ReviewingEditor and Anonymous: 3"

Doing this should not be actively sanctioned, because it is better practice than using a Google cache copy, a worse practice that we cannot stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think it should always be possible to improve an article on Wikipedia. However, I would support the proposition that a temporarily undeleted article should not be altered in mainspace during the DRV, and I would recommend making one (1) userspace copy in order to work on it (not several different copies for different editors though). The history merge that will result if DRV decides to restore the article ought to be simple because there will be no overlapping timestamps.

  I don't think temporary undeletion is a "courtesy"; I think it has two important purposes. The first is to help DRV participants find the sources originally used, and the second is to help illuminate who made which edit so as to enable people to detect conduct issues.—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• It used to be standard practice to protect temporarily-undeleted articles, as can be seen in the history of ((TempUndelete)) and on its talk page, and as still provided for at Wikipedia:Protection policy#"History only" review. I can't speak for the other admins who currently temp-undelete pages here, and I wasn't active in... 2010 or so?... when the practice fell out of favor, but I don't bother to protect these days because A) I still remember a couple instances when a page accidentally stayed protected for days following a DRV decision to restore, and B) I assume that folks at DRV are grownups who respect the process and recognize the ephemeral nature of temporary restorations. —Cryptic 13:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• It largely depends who does it. If it's the same people that failed to get it kept at AfD? Problematic. That word "improve" is somewhat elastic in practice. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Where the talk page and answer??? Deleting without answer is very aggressive, please put it back and put an answer and please talk. --Krauss (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the page as per the undelete request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)