378:
276:
Its still reading as a bit promotional and its so surprising that this inexperienced user has appeared from a long absence to draft a slightly spammy article so perfectly formatted that I'm really wondering whether there is a connection between the author and the subject. I have been around a decade
182:
approach, that the article was poorly sourced, and had unresolved copvio issues. The current copy does not have these issues. Additionally, the admin deleted the article under CSD, as opposed to relisting an AFD (given that more than a year has elapsed and the copy does not have the same issues the
357:
Any noticeable improvement in sourcing ends the appropriateness of G4. Substantially identical is a rather high bar, intentionally. It can be relisted if desired, and looks like an utterly trivial article, but that's not for DRV, which is only commenting on the appropriateness of the speedy.
221:. G4 is only for articles that are "sufficiently identical copies", but this new version is completely different to the one deleted at AFD and appears to be a complete rewrite from scratch. There might still be a case for deletion but that needs to be decided by the community.
254:. It is similar enough to the previously deleted version that I can see why it was speedily deleted. Given the changes, especially the improved sourcing, I think it is due to let this topic have another deletion discussion.
236:
as it has been stated that it was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version (taking
Lankiveil's word on it, as I can't view it as a non-administrator), with no prejudice to this article being listed at
208:
per SOP. I have not, however, restored any of the actually-deleted revisions because of the allegations of copyvio in the history; I'm currently a bit busy in RL so don't have time to investigate that properly.
77:
277:
and couldn't format an article so well. I'd like to have that clarified before I formally opine but my view is that we should just resend this to AFD to deal with the issue of promotion.
321:. Just about every paragraph's changed slightly, so the Mediawiki diff algorithm fails as completely as it usually does, but there's nothing remotely "complete" about the rewrite. —
48:
34:
161:
43:
198:
Procedural: This clearly-not-so-new user has move-warred to get his version into mainspace while the DRV's ongoing. I've therefore blanked it with
39:
149:
21:
202:
372:
Looks like promotional garbage to me, though if a full discussion is required to arrive at a decision it is not big issue.
292:
170:
412:
99:
17:
339:
263:
188:
317:
I've undeleted the old article, sans the revisions identified as copyvios. The diff across the recreation is
399:
367:
347:
325:
296:
271:
225:
213:
192:
88:
280:
394:
184:
363:
85:
389:
288:
119:
251:
238:
233:
179:
377:
222:
359:
82:
322:
304:
284:
210:
115:
70:
333:
312:
257:
385:
330:
Thanks for doing that, I've adjusted my statement above accordingly.
388:
and see if that should have a deletion request at
Wikidata. —
384:
if the final decision is to leave deleted please look at
318:
156:
142:
134:
126:
8:
98:The following is an archived debate of the
278:
63:
7:
415:of the page listed in the heading.
183:previous one is said to have had).
28:
376:
411:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
400:15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
368:02:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
348:08:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
326:08:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
309:See the nominator's talk page.
297:07:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
272:04:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
226:23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
214:23:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
193:20:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
89:23:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
438:
178:The prior AFD supported a
418:Please do not modify it.
105:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
203:Temporarily undeleted
102:of the page above.
355:Overturn G4 Speedy
241:after restoration.
219:Overturn G4 speedy
425:
424:
346:
299:
283:comment added by
270:
59:14 September 2016
49:2016 September 15
35:2016 September 13
429:
420:
397:
380:
342:
336:
331:
316:
308:
266:
260:
255:
207:
201:
185:StonefieldBreeze
173:
168:
159:
145:
137:
129:
107:
76:Overturn G4 and
64:
53:
33:
437:
436:
432:
431:
430:
428:
427:
426:
416:
413:deletion review
393:
345:
340:
334:
310:
302:
269:
264:
258:
205:
199:
169:
167:
164:
155:
154:
148:
141:
140:
133:
132:
125:
124:
103:
100:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
435:
433:
423:
422:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
370:
352:
351:
350:
338:
300:
274:
262:
229:
216:
176:
175:
165:
152:
146:
138:
130:
122:
110:
109:
94:
93:
92:
91:
61:
56:
47:
44:2016 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
434:
421:
419:
414:
409:
408:
401:
398:
396:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
373:
371:
369:
365:
361:
356:
353:
349:
343:
337:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
314:
306:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
273:
267:
261:
253:
249:
245:
242:
240:
235:
230:
227:
224:
220:
217:
215:
212:
204:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
181:
172:
163:
158:
151:
144:
136:
128:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
106:
101:
96:
95:
90:
87:
84:
80:
79:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
417:
410:
392:
390:billinghurst
381:
354:
279:— Preceding
247:
243:
231:
218:
177:
116:John Basedow
104:
97:
75:
71:John Basedow
69:
58:
375:additional
78:list at AfD
386:d:Q6220997
234:WP:CSD#G4
232:Overturn
223:Lankiveil
382:Comment:
360:Jclemens
293:contribs
281:unsigned
244:Undelete
83:RoySmith
20: |
395:sDrewth
323:Cryptic
305:Spartaz
285:Spartaz
211:Cryptic
171:restore
135:history
180:WP:TNT
86:(talk)
335:Godsy
313:Godsy
259:Godsy
157:watch
150:links
81:– --
52:: -->
16:<
364:talk
341:CONT
319:this
289:talk
265:CONT
248:list
246:and
189:talk
143:logs
127:edit
120:talk
32:<
252:AfD
250:at
239:AfD
162:XfD
160:) (
22:Log
366:)
332:—
295:)
291:•
256:—
206:}}
200:{{
191:)
74:–
42::
362:(
344:)
315::
311:@
307::
303:@
287:(
268:)
228:.
209:—
187:(
174:)
166:|
153:|
147:|
139:|
131:|
123:|
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.