Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 July 23 - Wikipedia - Recent changes [en]

*'''Overturn latest G4 and restore to draft''', explicitly without insisting on OwenX's request above to stage-gate via quality of new sourcing. As Frank Anchor wrote, the last deleted recreation was not {{tq|substantially similar}} and so the latest G4 was not correct. Restoring to draft so interested parties can add new sources (including maybe discovering they are still not adequate) is a very reasonable next step. Based on this and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_July_1&oldid=1299735883], it does seem we repeatedly have cases where G4 is stretched from "article substantially similar" to "sourcing not materially different". That is not covered by our speedy deletion criteria. I have a lot of sympathy for admins mopping up recreations that repeatedly fall short of the mark in terms of notability and sourcing, but passing judgment as to whether expanded sourcing is or isn't sufficient is much more nuanced than application of SD criteria, which should be noncontroversial housekeeping. I don't know if we should stop doing it (as not supported by policy), or carefully and throughfully expand G4 to include obvious cases but punt less obvious ones to a discussion, but at the very least we need to support users making a plausible effort to bring articles up to snuff. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 22:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Overturn latest G4 and restore to draft''', explicitly without insisting on OwenX's request above to stage-gate via quality of new sourcing. As Frank Anchor wrote, the last deleted recreation was not {{tq|substantially similar}} and so the latest G4 was not correct. Restoring to draft so interested parties can add new sources (including maybe discovering they are still not adequate) is a very reasonable next step. Based on this and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_July_1&oldid=1299735883], it does seem we repeatedly have cases where G4 is stretched from "article substantially similar" to "sourcing not materially different". That is not covered by our speedy deletion criteria. I have a lot of sympathy for admins mopping up recreations that repeatedly fall short of the mark in terms of notability and sourcing, but passing judgment as to whether expanded sourcing is or isn't sufficient is much more nuanced than application of SD criteria, which should be noncontroversial housekeeping. I don't know if we should stop doing it (as not supported by policy), or carefully and throughfully expand G4 to include obvious cases but punt less obvious ones to a discussion, but at the very least we need to support users making a plausible effort to bring articles up to snuff. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 22:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

*:I cheer any effort to improve our policies and guidelines. At this point, however, that seems about as easy as updating the Catholic Canon. For example, in April, {{u|Jclemens}}, who authored many of our existing policies, suggested adding a Speedy Keep criterion to cover low-effort mass AfD nominations. Seemed like an easy fix to handle situations that can burn up an inordinate amount of community time under our existing process. After a [[Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations|20,000-word debate]] involving dozens of participants, we ended up just like we do with almost every such proposal - exactly where we started. {{pb}} The original version of G4 read, "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." This was our primary tool for enforcing AfD results. But due to cases of admin overreach, it was later tightened to add the "substantially identical" restriction, which opened the door to gaming the system by adding a source or two with a cursory WP:ROUTINE mention of the subject, and voilà! They get a free extra bite at the apple; AfD round #2 without even having to go through DRV. {{pb}} I'm not saying this is the case here, and have no problem draftifying. I'm just very reluctant to trout an admin for a good-faith application of G4 to an article that was, ''prima facie'', no better than the one deleted at AfD. If you can come up with a G4 improvement that passes RfC, my hat is off to you. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 22:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

*:I cheer any effort to improve our policies and guidelines. At this point, however, that seems about as easy as updating the Catholic Canon. For example, in April, {{u|Jclemens}}, who authored many of our existing policies, suggested adding a Speedy Keep criterion to cover low-effort mass AfD nominations. Seemed like an easy fix to handle situations that can burn up an inordinate amount of community time under our existing process. After a [[Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations|20,000-word debate]] involving dozens of participants, we ended up just like we do with almost every such proposal - exactly where we started. {{pb}} The original version of G4 read, "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." This was our primary tool for enforcing AfD results. But due to cases of admin overreach, it was later tightened to add the "substantially identical" restriction, which opened the door to gaming the system by adding a source or two with a cursory WP:ROUTINE mention of the subject, and voilà! They get a free extra bite at the apple; AfD round #2 without even having to go through DRV. {{pb}} I'm not saying this is the case here, and have no problem draftifying. I'm just very reluctant to trout an admin for a good-faith application of G4 to an article that was, ''prima facie'', no better than the one deleted at AfD. If you can come up with a G4 improvement that passes RfC, my hat is off to you. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 22:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

*This was a long time ago, so anything I say here is a reconstruction rather than recollection. I'm the second-G4 deleting admin from 8 June 2024. Note that this is all long prior to the April 2025 discussion for clarification or modification of the wording and/or any later changes to is implementation in spirit. , I would have looked back to the state of the article at its prior-deletion state (20 January 2024) of a multiply-deleted article and seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shyamambaram&diff=1227792457&oldid=1197397896 this diff] to see if it was substantively equivalent, or had substantive hint of changes to overcome the conventional DRV standard to overturn or overcome-previous AFD at the time, and I would have looked at the editor involved to see if there was a serious doubt of their good-faith status to be working on it (evasion and other hopelessness means G4 might not be technically the best/only/most-correct log detail). The substantive changes in the diff appear to be the plot/synopsis (less detail and no sources, but plot often does not need them), the cast-list (substantially reduced but has sources) and the controversies (new section, has sources). That last is a fairly small content addition and is the only place I would have said (and still now would say) "this is not really the same as the previous" and look at it in detail. The original AFD was for SIGCOV, and the refs for the new section are all prior to the AFD. Using the DRV standard as I understood it at the time, that means it was in the timeframe where it should have been found at or before AFD, so it wouldn't merit an automatic acceptance. The subject, as a Zee-related production, is highly susceptible to COI/PR-team contribution, so I would have leaned against automatic acceptance in light of previous admin actions. Note that by "automatic acceptance", I mean "created into mainspace, without DRV helping decide that we actually have something acceptably new and with suitable sources, etc. or without AFC process". So I stand by my decision at the time based on standards as at the time as I understood them at the time.{{pb}}That said, I have no objection to overturning my G4 based on current standards and other editors' desire to work on the article. As I said, DRV is the place I would have standardly seen discussions about recreating previously-deleted pages for consensus, and here we are now. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 00:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

*This was a long time ago, so anything I say here is a reconstruction rather than recollection. I'm the second-G4 deleting admin from 8 June 2024. Note that this is all long prior to the April 2025 discussion for clarification or modification of the wording and/or any later changes to is implementation in spirit. , I would have looked back to the state of the article at its prior-deletion state (20 January 2024) of a multiply-deleted article and seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shyamambaram&diff=1227792457&oldid=1197397896 this diff] to see if it was substantively equivalent, or had substantive hint of changes to overcome the conventional DRV standard to overturn or overcome-previous AFD at the time, and I would have looked at the editor involved to see if there was a serious doubt of their good-faith status to be working on it (evasion and other hopelessness means G4 might not be technically the best/only/most-correct log detail). The substantive changes in the diff appear to be the plot/synopsis (less detail and no sources, but plot often does not need them), the cast-list (substantially reduced but has sources) and the controversies (new section, has sources). That last is a fairly small content addition and is the only place I would have said (and still now would say) "this is not really the same as the previous" and look at it in detail. The original AFD was for SIGCOV, and the refs for the new section are all prior to the AFD. Using the DRV standard as I understood it at the time, that means it was in the timeframe where it should have been found at or before AFD, so it wouldn't merit an automatic acceptance. The subject, as a Zee-related production, is highly susceptible to COI/PR-team contribution, so I would have leaned against automatic acceptance in light of previous admin actions. Note that by "automatic acceptance", I mean "created into mainspace, without DRV helping decide that we actually have something acceptably new and with suitable sources, etc. or without AFC process". So I stand by my decision at the time based on standards as at the time as I understood them at the time.{{pb}}That said, I have no objection to overturning my deletion via DRV and sending to draft-space based on current standards and other editors' desire to work on the article, and even those are in keeping with something I would have advocated at the time. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 00:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)