669:- It has already been given its chances. We know that spammers want to put crud into article space, and that if article space is protected, they will try to put it into draft space and submit it. If draft space isn't protected, then the usual practice is to submit the crud repeatedly from draft space, requiring the reviewers to reject it repeatedly. (Reject was meant to deal with repeated resubmissions. It works against clueless users. It doesn't work against spammers, who use a patented
201:- DRV use case 3: new information since deletion - that is, Dr-Bracket (and I) dredged up some RS coverage. Certainly it should be allowed to exist as a draft - the spammy deleted versions were notably RS-free, and if you look, you'll see this one isn't. It'll be a bit of a spam magnet, but not more than the rest of our our cryptocurrency-related coverage is, and there's a pile of editors of late working to keep this area up to RS standard -
610:- It appears that the issue has become whether the create protection should be downgraded in both draft space and article space from admin protected to extended-confirmed protected. I concur with changing the level of create protection to ECP, which will allow an established editor to create a draft and to submit it for review.
449:
This is quite definitely different content, with actual sources. It's not a mainspace-ready article yet - but it's the precise sort of thing that, with proper review, warrants unsalting of a deservedly-salted article topic. I fully appreciate spammer-weariness ... but did you actually compare the old
261:
part of the cleanup was me removing several incarnations of this topic from draft and userspace. I don't recall exactly how many as I also sought deletion on many other crypto pages. I do remember there were different capitalizations. This is a DS area full of promotion and undisclosed COI. I suggest
485:
No, and I really don't get how you read that from what I wrote. The old text was a pile of bad refs and primary refs, and the text the person bringing the DRV is talking about is based on RS refs. You seem to be arguing vociferously about the merits of text that you now admit you've literally not
430:
permitting creation of the page in draft space while it is create-protected in article space. It is NOT useful to permit creation of a page in draft space that cannot be accepted into article space. If the page exists in draft space but is blocked out of article space, it will be repeatedly and
592:
per Roy. Note: I've not been able to compare these two, but no one seems to be claiming the *are* substantially identical and in fact there seems to be general agreement that this one has much better sources. That's more than enough to overcome a G4. So this needs to be overturned unless we are
687:
I mostly agree with you - but I'm not here to spam; I've presented article that does it the right way. The whole point of salting is getting the approval of the admin who salted it, as a way curb spammers from ever reaching here. And so I did; this is probably the best draft we'll ever see, in
572:
If the nominator is not an admin, they can't, at least not officially. Unofficially, deleted pages are often still visible on various mirrors, Deletionpedia, search engine caches, etc. In any case, the admin who services the nomination should be checking. --
276:
I have no COI with Tron (never owned any, don't know anyone personally who owns any), and had that in some of the talk pages that were getting moved around. I decided to create this article because I knew I could fairly, and I knew I could fully meet WP:GNG.
228:
164:
181:
I had the approval of the admin who originally salted the article (David Gerard), but it was nonetheless speedily deleted for rule Db-G4 which the article did not break, as it was significantly different from both prior deletions.
224:
220:
729:
Just a question - can you guys actually see the draft I created (as opposed to the previously hideous ones), or is this just based off assumptions? I think that might explain a lot.
152:
48:
34:
537:, I do not object to downgrading the create-protection in both article space and draft space to ECP, which will still provide reasonable protection against spamming.
321:
The deleted content was not the typical promotional dreck that used to permeate this topic area - this one was a legitimate attempt to write an encyclopedia article.
43:
173:
467:- As noted below, I can't compare the old text with the new text, and I am very tired of the same topics being spammed over and over again. Is
554:- By the way, how is a nominator to know whether a page is substantially identical to a deleted page if they can't see the deleted page?
39:
82:
didn't apply. In the absence of a clear consensus to apply IAR, this deletion is overturned due to violating the requirements for G4.
422:– This Deletion Review is actually being used as the proper forum for a review of the create-protection (salting) of the title. I
471:
saying that I just have to ignore the spammers because their old crud has been hidden from me and their new crud is still there?
216:
21:
773:
638:
I can almost guarantee if this stays in draft space without some sort of protection, it will turn into a pile of crap.
102:
17:
122:
678:
615:
559:
542:
525:
476:
440:
118:
70:
512:– When a new account shows up and starts submitting in a contentious area, many of us are inclined to suspect
758:
738:
724:
697:
682:
661:
647:
633:
619:
602:
580:
563:
546:
529:
495:
480:
459:
444:
406:
353:
339:
325:
308:
286:
271:
249:
235:
210:
191:
91:
491:
455:
349:
245:
206:
720:
734:
693:
674:
643:
611:
555:
538:
521:
472:
436:
282:
187:
304:
267:
87:
755:
577:
403:
78:. No one appears to reasonably contest the assertion that the version was different enough that
487:
468:
451:
345:
241:
202:
670:
517:
416:
following deletion discussion and create-protection following repeated re-creation. However:
335:
per David Gerard. I, or some other admin, can slap ECP on it to keep the spam out if needed.
716:
513:
396:
371:
367:
730:
689:
657:
639:
629:
598:
593:
going to rely on IAR (or someone claims that this is in fact basically the same article).
509:
278:
183:
432:
362:
79:
370:
lays out very specific requirements and it's one of the few places where I don't think
300:
263:
83:
752:
574:
400:
652:
I'd suggest giving it a chance first, but I don't know the area as well as you do.
232:
653:
625:
594:
336:
322:
378:. If I'm following the history properly, the two versions in question are:
520:. You say that you have no special interest in Tron, but we had to ask.
688:
regards to it actually having someone committed to making it follow GNG.
366:. I can think of many reasons why this is not an article we want, but
673:.) Once the spammers show up, giving another chance is a mistake.
715:: unlikely to develop into a viable article, so best kept deleted.
426:
general lifting of the create-protection in article space. I also
751:
I've tempundeleted this, so that should resolve that issue. --
219:, unless it was years before any of the deletion discussions (
450:
text to the new text, or did you just go by the topic? -
240:
If the log disagrees, then I'm misremembering, sorry! -
159:
145:
137:
129:
199:
Allow draft, with prospect of recreation as an article
374:should apply. G4 requires that the versions be
384:13 December 2018, at 04:39 by Robert McClenon
8:
381:1 December 2018, at 08:34 by BrownHairedGirl
197:I salted one of the previous incarnations.
101:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
399:does, however, seem like a good plan. --
7:
344:ECP is a good idea here, actually -
776:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
772:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
624:Why would we ECP draft space?
391:These clearly do not meet the
1:
759:16:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
739:02:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
725:02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
698:23:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
683:22:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
662:23:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
648:14:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
634:07:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
620:03:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
603:17:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
581:03:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
564:23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
547:23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
530:23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
496:19:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
481:17:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
460:23:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
445:23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
407:23:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
354:20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
340:19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
326:19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
309:19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
287:18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
272:18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
262:finding a more useful topic.
250:20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
236:17:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
211:17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
192:16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
92:17:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
333:Allow recreation as a draft
119:Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency)
71:Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency)
799:
435:resubmitted by spammers.
215:Which incarnation? It's
779:Please do not modify it.
299:Ok fair enough. Thanks.
108:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
393:substantially identical
376:substantially identical
514:conflict of interest
105:of the page above.
671:bean-removing tool
74:– Speedy deletion
786:
785:
535:Comment – However
469:User:David Gerard
790:
781:
414:Endorse Deletion
259:Endorse deletion
217:not in your logs
176:
171:
162:
148:
140:
132:
110:
64:
59:14 December 2018
53:
49:2018 December 15
35:2018 December 13
33:
798:
797:
793:
792:
791:
789:
788:
787:
777:
774:deletion review
675:Robert McClenon
612:Robert McClenon
556:Robert McClenon
539:Robert McClenon
522:Robert McClenon
510:User:Dr-Bracket
473:Robert McClenon
437:Robert McClenon
172:
170:
167:
158:
157:
151:
144:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
106:
103:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
796:
794:
784:
783:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
744:
743:
742:
741:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
605:
586:
585:
584:
583:
567:
566:
549:
532:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
417:
410:
409:
395:requirement.
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
358:
357:
356:
330:
329:
328:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
292:
291:
290:
289:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
179:
178:
168:
155:
149:
141:
133:
125:
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
795:
782:
780:
775:
770:
769:
760:
757:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
699:
695:
691:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
591:
588:
587:
582:
579:
576:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
508:
505:
497:
493:
489:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:tendentiously
429:
425:
421:
418:
415:
412:
411:
408:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
383:
380:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
364:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
338:
334:
331:
327:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
260:
257:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
189:
185:
175:
166:
161:
154:
147:
139:
131:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2018 December
41:
36:
23:
19:
778:
771:
712:
666:
607:
589:
551:
534:
518:sockpuppetry
506:
488:David Gerard
464:
452:David Gerard
427:
423:
419:
413:
392:
375:
360:
346:David Gerard
332:
258:
242:David Gerard
203:David Gerard
198:
180:
107:
100:
75:
69:
58:
717:K.e.coffman
731:Dr-Bracket
690:Dr-Bracket
640:Dr-Bracket
279:Dr-Bracket
184:Dr-Bracket
76:overturned
361:Overturn
301:Legacypac
264:Legacypac
88:pingó mió
84:Galobtter
753:RoySmith
590:Overturn
575:RoySmith
401:RoySmith
20: |
713:Endorse
667:Comment
608:Comment
552:Comment
507:Comment
486:read -
465:Comment
420:Comment
233:Cryptic
174:restore
138:history
756:(talk)
578:(talk)
428:Oppose
424:Oppose
404:(talk)
397:WP:ECP
372:WP:IAR
368:WP:CSD
654:Hobit
626:Hobit
595:Hobit
363:WP:G4
337:MER-C
323:MER-C
160:watch
153:links
80:WP:G4
52:: -->
16:<
735:talk
721:talk
694:talk
679:talk
658:talk
644:talk
630:talk
616:talk
599:talk
560:talk
543:talk
526:talk
516:and
492:talk
477:talk
456:talk
441:talk
350:talk
305:talk
283:talk
268:talk
246:talk
231:). —
229:MFD2
225:MFD1
221:AFD1
207:talk
188:talk
146:logs
130:edit
123:talk
32:<
165:XfD
163:) (
22:Log
737:)
723:)
696:)
681:)
660:)
646:)
632:)
618:)
601:)
562:)
545:)
528:)
494:)
479:)
458:)
443:)
352:)
307:)
285:)
270:)
248:)
227:,
223:,
209:)
190:)
90:)
42::
733:(
719:(
692:(
677:(
656:(
642:(
628:(
614:(
597:(
558:(
541:(
524:(
490:(
475:(
454:(
439:(
348:(
303:(
281:(
266:(
244:(
205:(
186:(
177:)
169:|
156:|
150:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
121:(
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.