301:. If it doesn't then lets just reassess it. Maybe if it had only just been conducted there would be a case for deleting it, but after nearly a year and no evidence of collusion (i.e. a sockpuppet passing their own article) the better option would be to just let this stand and go through the normal process.
197:
the article was marked a GA (even if its status was somehow false). The chance to say "whoops this never happened" was right when the article was passed for GA. The nominator did not refuse the promotion, and so we're stuck with this, as we would be for a paid promotion or a backroom deal promotion
192:
Additional comment: I believe the nom misspoke when calling the editor in question a "sock". They later engaged in sockpuppetery, but this account was the future sockmaster, not a sock. And when this review happened, they were technically in good standing. Anyway, even if they weren't - if it is
125:
Bogus GA review by a now community banned sock. Page was nominated for G5, but declined because it technically doesn't meet the G5 criteria. To be honest, I'm willing to G6 this as "unambiguously created in error" and take my lumps at the inevitable DRV, but I've decided to color within the lines
173:
review judging by the article history and GA icon. And the user was not banned at the time. And it isn't total nonsense or gibberish. Ergo, this review is still needed in the history (to explain why the article was a GA from
January 2021 - present). I recommend starting a procedural
216:
Just a nit: there is no fundamental difference between a sock and a sockmaster. We just call the account with the earliest creation date the master and all the others socks. But, yes, you are correct that G5 didn't apply. --
354:. Either procedurally delist or conduct a GAR as appropriate, but I concur with SmokeyJoe that the GA process needs a way to deal with subpar reviews that does not conflict with the deletion policy. Regards,
351:
270:
178:
where the article is re-reviewed and either "kept" (read: passed For Real) or removed. Can advertise it on the normal GAN list or the talk page if there's a concern about turnout.
202:
would probably keep the bots happy. But philosophically, it's just a bad idea to pretend this didn't happen - it was left as a GA in good standing for too long, nearly a year.
280:
consensus and/or IAR) and start afresh. In either case, deletion is not necessary, and I don't really see how retaining this page "is holding up legitimate GA operations".
321:: Delete if bogus, but I am not convinced it is bogus, as opposed to inept. The GA process needs a way to deal with this that does not conflict with WP:Deletion Policy. —
193:
revealed that an editor who passed a GA 5 years ago was really a sockpuppet, say, or an undisclosed paid editor - there needs to be an explanation on the books for
106:
102:
297:
I do not see how this is holding up a legitimate process either. While we obviously want decent reviews the main issue is whether the article meets the
94:
276:) and leave it unclear why the article was a GA for almost a year. A GAR is an option, or it might be easier to just void the review (citing the
250:
Strong oppose to use of G6 to delete reviews that you don’t like. G6 should be restricted to pages with a trivial history, which this does not.
236:. Could be G6; it serves no legitimate purpose as a GA review and is holding up the proper placement of the nomination in the GA backlog queue. —
355:
69:
17:
363:
338:
313:
289:
285:
259:
245:
224:
211:
187:
157:
141:
75:
274:
380:
40:
359:
241:
281:
199:
89:
81:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
376:
64:
36:
98:
347:
334:
326:
255:
237:
127:
277:
221:
207:
183:
154:
138:
131:
310:
59:
375:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
150:
It's obvious the community thinks this is a bad idea, so withdrawing the nomination. --
330:
322:
298:
251:
54:
218:
203:
179:
175:
151:
135:
302:
198:
or the like. As another option, a speedy-delist GAR followed by a new GAN to make
169:. While this review was undoubtedly deficient, it was apparently a
273:
are even more valid here since deletion would break links (e.g.
371:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
134:
about how this is holding up legitimate GA operations. --
352:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1
114:
110:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
383:). No further edits should be made to this page.
350:. I don't really think there's a need to rehash
8:
7:
48:The result of the discussion was:
24:
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
329:) 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
346:in the absence of a compelling
126:and bring it here. Please see
1:
364:20:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
339:02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
314:23:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
290:06:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
260:02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
246:02:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
225:14:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
212:06:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
188:02:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
158:20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
142:02:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
76:21:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
269:. I think the arguments at
403:
271:this roughly analogous MfD
373:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
200:Talk:Clique (song)/GA2
90:Talk:Clique (song)/GA1
82:Talk:Clique (song)/GA1
55:(non-admin closure)
50:nominator withdrawn
282:Extraordinary Writ
57:
394:
119:
118:
74:
53:
34:
402:
401:
397:
396:
395:
393:
392:
391:
387:
381:deletion review
92:
88:
85:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
400:
398:
389:
386:
385:
367:
366:
356:78.140.196.174
341:
316:
292:
264:
263:
262:
238:David Eppstein
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
163:
162:
161:
160:
128:the discussion
122:
121:
84:
79:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
399:
390:
384:
382:
378:
374:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
315:
312:
309:
308:
307:
300:
296:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
232:
226:
223:
220:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
196:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
168:
165:
164:
159:
156:
153:
149:
148:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
129:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
78:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
63:
62:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
388:
372:
370:
348:WP:DELREASON
343:
318:
305:
304:
294:
266:
233:
194:
170:
166:
124:
123:
70:
65:
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
171:successful
377:talk page
331:SmokeyJoe
323:SmokeyJoe
252:SmokeyJoe
37:talk page
379:or in a
219:RoySmith
204:SnowFire
180:SnowFire
152:RoySmith
136:RoySmith
39:or in a
299:WP:GACR
103:history
99:subject
61:Waddles
311:(talk)
278:WT:GAN
234:Delete
222:(talk)
176:WP:GAR
155:(talk)
139:(talk)
132:WT:GAN
111:watch
107:links
16:<
360:talk
344:Keep
335:talk
327:talk
319:Keep
306:corn
295:Keep
286:talk
267:Keep
256:talk
242:talk
208:talk
184:talk
167:Keep
115:logs
95:edit
303:Air
195:why
130:at
362:)
337:)
288:)
258:)
244:)
210:)
186:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
71:🖉
66:🗩
52:.
358:(
333:(
325:(
284:(
254:(
240:(
206:(
182:(
120:
117:)
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.