From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2017 February 21
2017 February 23 >

22 February 2017

  • Steve salis – Speedy deletion endorsed – by about 2 to 1, so at best we would have no consensus to undo the deletion. Normally, contested speedy deletions tend to go to AfD, but there are no arguments here that indicate that a case could now be made for keeping the article because of new sources, etc. –  Sandstein  07:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Steve salis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

User_talk:JzG/Archive_142#Disagree_with_speedy_deletion Hate to bring this up here but I was just straight up ignored and quickly manually archived by the deleting admin so I did. I'm not saying this article was in any way a good article, but I don't believe it was within CSD criteria and think it just needed some editing and removal of statements. Even if it is worse (can't actually see the page now) I think it probably would deserve a AfD or being userfied... EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Addendum: The article creator has been blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barbara.d.martin. Both creators and all non-trivial editors of the correctly capitalised and salted Steve Salis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are also sockpuppets of the same user, also blocked. Guy ( Help!) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply

As an aside, revisiting this it looks as if there is a nest of PR accounts at work. Guy ( Help!) 16:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ JzG: Not going to bat for spammers, just going to bat for filling the encyclopedia with notable information. I have good intentions here but it appears it has been all taken the wrong way. Still I agree the accounts making these are 100% in the wrong, just don't believe it instantly means an article deserves deletion if it is notable and a fair quality article. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion the original article was properly salted and the creator of this version knew why it was salted yet tried to get around it rather than address the problem with promotionalism. This was clearly addressed on JzG's talk page and bringing the matter here smells, to me, as process for process sake - and not even valid process at that because the article was spam recreated by a spammer, again as has been clearly explained to the OP. Jbh Talk 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion per Guy, correctly-deleted non-notable spam article, complete with deliberately-incorrect capitalisation to get around salting at the original title. If there's one thing more disgusting than throwaway spam accounts it's "real" users who enable, support, and defend spam. I hope you got something out of this, EoRdE6, because you just lost a whole lot of respect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Starblind: Ouch now that's just not necessary, be nice. I brought this here because THE ARTICLE seemed like a fair article. In this situation I don't give a crap who created it or why, I just felt like the community was losing out on a notable topic? Maybe I misinterpreted everything here but I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to make an encyclopedia covering all notable topics in depth? And did this deleted article not contribute to that? I rest my case however, I just came with good intentions of adding more information to the Wiki, that's all I ever try and do... @ Jbhunley: EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You seem to be trying to feign some sort of plausible deniability here ("I'm not saying this article was in any way a good article...") but with every word you dig yourself deeper. JZG pointed out to you on his talk page that this was a thrice-deleted spam article, and you decided to proceed with the DRV anyway even knowing exactly what the article was. Now, why would a supposedly "good" user seek to undelete an article they knew was spam? I can think up a scenario or two, but frankly they aren't anything nice. Assuming good faith only stretches so far, and if you really somehow forgot that this was a spam article (despite having been told so two days prior) then you would have closed the DRV the instant it was pointed out as spam (again). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yikes I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes I know, under the circumstances which this article was created, it is spam. I get it, no point in repeating it. I'm saying the article has a large amount of salvageable material on a notable topic... Or maybe not, I can't see it but my memory says yes. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 02:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion Spam is spam and evading a salted title is evading a salted title. Dealing with spammers is sufficiently tedious without make-work deletion reviews. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the deleted article was indeed spammy, and while it might be possible to come up with a vaguely acceptable version by removing/rewriting most of the content I'm not surprised that didn't happen. "large amount of salvageable material on a notable topic" isn't accurate, the article had about 130 words of prose when deleted and while the subject may well get pass the GNG he isn't exactly of earth-shattering importance. Hut 8.5 07:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD. While I don't condone the salt-evasion, looking at the article, there's enough there, and enough reasonable looking sources in mainstream media that WP:CSD doesn't apply. It's entirely likely it'll get deleted, but at least after an AfD discussion, we'll have a clear consensus. I have temp-undeleted this for review -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion I originally asked for this to be deleted, because it was incorrectly capitalised in order to bypass salting . Theroadislong ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Clearly a promotional/paid editor. ~ Rob13 Talk 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Which is not a CSD criteria (unless something has changed recently). Hobit ( talk) 20:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • G11 applies to promotional creations, but A7 also appears to apply here. Co-founder of a pizza shop which has no article (and questionable notability) and owner of some cafe? I don't see that as a credible claim of significance. ~ Rob13 Talk 07:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
        • It can't possibly be an A7, it cites third-party coverage. — Cryptic 07:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Of a business, not of a businessman. Throwing a few external links that casually mention somebody in an article doesn't make that person significant. It proves existence but little else. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD. Article as it was deleted isn't overly promotional. Probably meets WP:N, though just barely if at all. I agree with Roy on all counts--this should go through AfD as no part of CSD would seem to apply to the current article. Hobit ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Even if you don't accept that it's a G11 (and I do), it's clearly an open-and-shut G5. Unless someone wants to try and argue that it wasn't the same person creating it this time, despite most of the text being the same as the last time?
      Endorse on that basis, and specifically do not give it a pro-forma AFD unless someone volunteers to take full responsibility for the contents of the blocked user's edits. Just like with any other G5. — Cryptic 07:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • It's not strictly a G5 as none of this person's accounts was blocked at the time the article was created (G5 requires block/ban evasion). However I don't think it's a good idea for us to go to bat for a promotional sockmaster. Hut 8.5 07:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
        • You're right. I just looked at the last edit date of the accounts (since it handily shows up with popups) while comparing to the deleted revs, without clicking through to their actual block logs. That was careless. (There's a good argument to be made that users acting in obvious violation of the terms of use should be treated as banned ab initio, but this isn't the place.) — Cryptic 07:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion -Salted articles should not be recreated under different titles anyways. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD'. Plausibly notable, and it hasn't had its discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, creation was clearly a bad faith attempt to get out from underneath a salting. Even if we overlook that, it's G11 and the whole thing stinks to high hell of undisclosed paid editing. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC). reply
  • Note. I have started a discussion at WT:CSD about making articles created in evasion of salted titles subject to WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - page creation protection is the result of a community process determining that the page should not be recreated. Recreating the same page at a different title is an obvious effort by a bad actor to defeat that community process. Removing the page at any title improves the encyclopedia. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, if it's suspected that a deleted page contains salvageable encyclopedic content, there is a correct procedure to handle that fairly common situation. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and assuming good faith is not a suicide pact; when spammers repeatedly recreate pages like this, we do ourselves no favours arguing whether or not the content was deleted in exactly the right way. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Ivanvector: WP:REFUND Specifically excludes G11 so no that isn't a correct venue, this discussion is at the correct location to get a deleted page back. Regardless of the articles creator, it has usable content and was NOT deletable under current CSD criteria. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 04:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ EoRdE6: Yes, REFUND excludes G11 because we are not in the business of enabling spammers. By my count, 8 editors (not including myself) have reviewed the article and found it irredeemably promotional. We're not going to entertain yet another sockpuppet recreating the irredeemably promotional content with a detailed review because they lowercased the subject's surname, it's a waste of time. If you think it's worthwhile to write about the subject, I trust you can draft a pretty decent article in your sandbox and show it to one of the deleting admins. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:SALT, any admin can protect any page from being created, without any formal consensus. Usually, it is done after a few recreations, even if the deletions were speedy ones and there was never any discussion. As such, there is no community process that has been circumvented here. Plus, WP:SALT explicitly mentions DRV as a venue to revert such decisions. Regards So Why 07:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The formal consensus is that the protection level exists at all. If you don't think admins should be able to create-protect titles, or you'd like to modify the criteria, start a discussion to reverse that function at WP:VPP. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing against create-protection per se, I'm merely pointing out that in this case the protection was the result of a single admin's decision and thus recreating the page at a different title does not circumvent any community decision about this page (since there was none). Regards So Why 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD. Did the creator try to circumvent the SALT? Possibly. Did the article meet the speedy deletion criteria? Certainly not, so there is no reason to endorse this deletion just because the creator might have acted in good faith. I understand that some users think any article that might contain some spammy sounding bits can be deleted as G11 but that's simply not the case. G11 can only be used if removing the spammy language would mean removing everything. And only if every single revision meets the criterion. Here we have a stub with some peacock words but nothing more of a possibly notable individual. Plus, G11 speedy deleting any article that multiple editors in good standing have removed a speedy tag from [1] [2] has to be considered a mistake because policy only allows speedy deletion in "the most obvious cases". Those arguing to endorse the deletion should remember that the point of DRV is not to assess why an article was created but whether a speedy deletion criterion applied to the specific page. PS: It shouldn't be necessary to point this out but of course coverage of someone's business in reliable sources suffices to make the subject pass the very low threshold of A7. After all, the credible possibility of significance or importance is enough. PPS: Of the previous three deletions mentioned, at least the latter two were mistakes as well, since neither G11 nor A7 applied to those versions. Regards So Why 20:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
He possibly tried to evade salting? Try definitely and blatantly. By, you know, miscapitalising a proper name when he'd already edited the article at the correct capitalization. Using three separate accounts. Two of which created the article (three times between them) at the correct title. Guy ( Help!) 20:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I am hesitant to assume malice when simple lack of understanding how Wikipedia works can explain the behavior equally. Besides, as has been pointed out above, this is not relevant for determining whether your deletion was correct or not. A rule-breaking user should not be dealt with by breaking the rules as well. Regards So Why 21:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Did you see the addendum above? We have a nest of spammers who have been promoting a walled garden of articles, almost certainly for money, for years. You're treating this as if it was some clueless newbie. It isn't. It's a sock farm, here to spam Wikipedia. The best rule for dealing with spammers is to show them the door, clear up after them, and move on. Which is what we did. Guy ( Help!) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I did notice that none of those editors had been blocked, banned or even warned because of the problems you mentioned. And I did notice that they were not blocked when the article was created, hence G5 didn't apply. I understand the sentiment but as long as WP:CSD does not say "Admins can delete pages created by users suspected of COI or paid editing without discussion", the motive of the creator does not mean that the page can be deleted without discussion. As I said above, I am not arguing for or against assuming good or bad faith. I'm merely pointing out that (assumed) rule-breaking behavior should not be answered by breaking the rules. And since you cannot justify the deletion within the strict boundaries of WP:CSD, the only correct solution is to send the article to where its fate should have been discussed in the first place: AfD. Regards So Why 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ SoWhy: You'd be surprised about how many editors who believe undisclosed paid editing and/or COI themselves constitute "blatant advertising". I'm not saying they're right: just pointing something out. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_February_22&oldid=1082336344"