- I created four articles on four notable chess sets
Selenus chess set,
Barleycorn chess set,
St. George chess set and
French Regence chess set, which included references to external articles that supported the articles as notable. An over zealous admin
dick named
User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted the articles within minutes of them being created stating they are not notable. I advised if he did not like the articles to post an AFD, but he refused and simply deleted the articles and the Stub +tag and the referenced citations. I was still working on these articles to build them up, why would an admin delete a new article that has been created for less than five minutes?? I want the articles recreated in full. The admin should have placed a +tag "Keep and Expand" not delete the article, without first building a consensus!! 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- 1. "'The Selenus chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
- 2. "The French Regence chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
- 3. "The St. George chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess.", and
- 4. "The 'Barleycorn chess set s composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
There you go. That's the full content of those four articles.
DS (
talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Stop lying, where are the citations, the +stub tag, the +categories, the template, these were well organized +stub articles, don't be a
dick put the articles back and use the AFD, and build a consensus, the admin powers you have are not to be abused.
Green Squares (
talk)
- I happened to see these articles while they existed. These sets are not as famous as the
Staunton chess set and the
Lewis chessmen, but they were standard chess sets. The articles were barely stubs when I saw them, but I think they should be given a chance to be expanded into worthwhile articles.
Bubba73
(talk), 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That's fine. You're welcome to start 'em over. To repeat what I've told Green Squares already: "you gave no indication of any type of notability whatsoever. If you wish to re-create the articles, I recommend that you include some content about why they matter" and "There is no content here. If these are actually notable, if they've genuinely been around for centuries, then you should say so from the very first edit. You should explain why they matter. You did not do that. But you can do it now. " The full content of the articles is given above. WRITE THE DAMN ARTICLES. INCLUDE THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHY THEY'RE IMPORTANT.
DS (
talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Also, I didn't say they were not notable, I said "notability not asserted", which means that you-the-article-writer didn't include any information about why they mattered. I looked at your references. They were links to photographs. That's all. You also included {{chess-stub}}. So what? That's not an article. WRITE THE ARTICLES NOW, AND STOP COMPLAINING.
DS (
talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
endorse speedy Notability wasn't asserted. That said, deleting the articles "minutes after creation" if true, might not have been the best choice. Giving stubs time to grow isn't unreasonable. Certainly allow recreation.
Hobit (
talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Articles about chess sets don't need to assert notability, though;
A7 extends only to people, organizations, and web content (neither, I would note, do I think this was
A3able, but I accept that there may exist a consensus for a slightly broader operation of A3 than with which I am most comfortable).
Joe 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Agreed. Overturn speedy. At the least they were speedied with the wrong tag. I don't think any other reason clearly applies. So overturn.
Hobit (
talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - The speedy deletion criteria only allow articles on people, organizations, web content, and musical recordings to be deleted due to failure to assert notability. Since chess sets don't fall into any of those categories, an article on them shouldn't be speedy deleted for that reason. I think the single sentences DS provided are also just barely enough to qualify as content and context, so I don't think those criteria apply either.
Calathan (
talk) 04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, I'd say they do fall under CSD A1. The content is essentially a repeat of the lead, with a bunch of superfluous words thrown in: "The X chess set is... chess pieces...to play the game of chess". –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I could see that arguement too, though I was thinking that saying they are a "particular type" of chest piece, apparently with links to images of the particular type of pieces, establishes enough context (i.e. you could tell which specific chess sets the articles were about, as opposed the the example in CSD A1, where there are probably many thousands of people who are funny men with red cars).
Calathan (
talk) 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That would, I think, be a gross misapplication of A1; the subject of each of the articles, after all, may be discerned readily (in each case, a specific chess set). Although an article that consists of nothing but a restatement of its title may be expected to fail A1, it does not where that title itself provides at least a sense of the subject. As I note above, A3 ("Any article...consisting only of...a rephrasing of the title") may apply here, but I imagine that we would do well to avoid partaking of a technical analysis; it seems clear that we have a good-faith user who wishes to expand the articles and who thinks restoration would aid him in that pursuit, and I cannot think of any reason for which we should not accede to his request.
Joe 05:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think it would be a misapplication of A1 or A3. All 4 articles had the exact same text except for the subject's name. If you would've seen the article with the title blanked, you'd have insufficient information to make a distinction between the four. Hence a lack of context. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Not sure my idea of good faith extends to someone who thinks it's appropriate to attack a deletion review with "An over zealous admin dick named..." and "Stop lying, where are the citations, the +stub tag.." quite frankly the overall tone of the nom is well short of what I'd expect of a reaonable contributor, though the overall tone from both "sides" for what is a relatively trivial day to day wiki issue (deletion is not a never ever decision etc.) is pretty poor --
81.104.39.44 (
talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him
User:DragonflySixtyseven. I can say with relative certainty based on publicly available information that they are on different continents. DS has given his permission to run a checkuser on him to verify this, however, I don't see a need to do so. --
Versa
geek 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You demonstrate my point remarkably well --
81.104.39.44 (
talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion as articles having no substantial content. Furthermore, those who come seeking equity must come with
clean hands.
Stifle (
talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, I'm going to give a comment I've given alot recently - create the article in a condition where it will be kept. Otherwise, if you want to, create all four in
userspace and then move them into article space when they are in a condition where they will be kept. The article content provided by
User:DragonflySixtyseven doesn't assert notability or provide a meaningful context which is not in the title and a stub notification and external links doesn't change that. If you think the articles are about notable chess sets which should be in wikipedia, create them - but tell the world why they should be in wikipedia in the article itself.
Usrnme h8er (
talk ·
contribs) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Notability - The editor is not reproducing the articles in full, there were citations/references to external articles supporting notability. This is ridiculous, reproduce the article and give them a chance to expand, they only existed for five minutes, I was still working on them!!
Green Squares (
talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:CSD#A7 A7 does not apply to chess set articles, so the Hall Monitor doesn't know what he was doing twice! Here is A7:
- An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
Green Squares (
talk) 12:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Agreed, but the deletion was valid under CSD A3 as the articles contained no actual information or content other than a repetition of the title. Have another read of what Usrnme h8er wrote.
Stifle (
talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, and if you feel you need the content restored to improve the articles and put them in a position where they won't be deleted, I'm happy to userfy them.
Stifle (
talk) 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Even in this discussion, the editor has not given even a hint of why these chess sets are notable. --
Alvestrand (
talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Could you give a policy-based reason why that is important to this discussion of overturning a speedy delete?
Hobit (
talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:IAR. These fail
WP:N, and there's not even a hint in the editor's comments that he's willing to consider that stuff that fails
WP:N shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Editors should either create articles that have a chance of surviving a
WP:N examination, or not create articles. Until there's some hint that there's evidence these chess sets are notable, arguing for their restoration is just wikilawyering. --
Alvestrand (
talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The Hall Monitor to cover his tracks has only reproduced a portion of the article and not the citations/references used confirming the notability. He probably never even checked the citations, being in such a rush to earn
Barnstars.
Green Squares (
talk) 14:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not exactly in favor of overturning the deletion at this point. I suggested to Green Squares that he expand the articles first and then create the articles (or recreate them). I don't see any point in arguing over it now. Flesh out at least one of the articles offline, then post it.
Bubba73
(talk), 15:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn 1/ deleted too soon after creation -- people needa chance to develop articles 2/ deleted for unacceptable reason not provided for by policy 2a/ no speedy reason applies--if you can tell what the article is about, it has context according to the policy, a an article with a refernec eand a description of the object is not empty. 3/ time to provide references might show notability, but that gets judged in AfD . Non-notable is not a reason for speedy deletion--many apparently not notable things are shown to be notable during the discussions there. I have no idea if the sets are notable but this has to be judged at afd after the experts at Wikipedia have been notified via the Wikiproject. and it is time we did something about over-zealous admins who delete incomplete articles,still being worked on; it is also time we did something about admins who ignore deletion policy and think that speedy deletion can be done on the basis of notability. They discourage new editors, and destroy potential content. The people here who !vote to support the deletion on the basis of not being notable think they are at AfD1. Deletion review is not for judging notability.
DGG (
talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I think this boils down to the definition of meaningful content and procedure versus common sense. I may have expressed myself poorly above (and used the word notability, which isn't really in the right place when discussing CSD) so allow me to elaborate. I would argue, for example, that an article about a person which contained nothing but the statement "John Doe is a person who is alive" and then had a stub marking, a see also to
person and a navbox with people in it would be equally applicable to CSD through A1, A3 or A7 - not just A7. In this particular scenario, and in the case of the chess sets, the A3 motivation would be based on the very core of A3: "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, [...]". I consider the deletion of these pages a valid interpretation of that CSD criterion. The content was, as summarized by sysop
User:Stifle on my talk page, "the text DS specified, a reference to a blog, a reference to either a personal website or a site selling the chess sets, an internal link, a navbox, a stub tag, and categories". The two remind particularly well of each other. "The Selenus chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess." (quote, DS, above) is a redundant self referencing sentence which provides no information not already in the title: "Selenus chess set" It's a chess set. Chess sets are used to play chess. It has a name, so it's probably a specific chess set. I'm choosing to maintain my !vote as this having been a proper interpretation of CSD criterion A3. The feedback we should be noting is that the wrong reason was given for deletion, not that the deletion was inproper. IM not so HO (is it ever) overturning a deletion on the grounds that the edit-summary attributed the deletion to an invalid criteria when another criteria applied is pure proceduralism for the sake of procedure. On the issue of the amount of time the articles existed, afaik there is no "must have existed for x minutes" guideline in the administrator instructions for CSD - that's always going to be a judgment call on the part of the admin in question. It should also be noted that no exact creation date has been provided in this DRV. If one of the admins involved could provide that, that would be nice, and might lead no another thing to note. Now userfy, improve and move back to mainspace or recreate from scratch with meaningful content - and I wish you the best avoiding the V N in RS discussion at AfD which seems nearly unavoidable when I scramble around on the internet looking for sources. As a show of good faith, if the articles are recreated and such a discussion does come up, I'll personally avoid !voting in it.
Usrnme h8er (
talk ·
contribs) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ah,
Usrnme h8er your incorrect, time has a lot to do with it. If an article meets the criteria for expansion in the future, it qualifies to be an article at Wikipedia. If a New Article Patroller, deletes the article, within five minutes they have not given the legitimate article the time it requires for expansion. This is why we have +stub +tags, to stop overzealous patrollers like you from deleting articles. Perhaps, you should re-evaluate the contribution you are making to Wikipedia. I suspect your philosophy of hurting Wikipedia is in conflict with what you have ever done to help Wikipedia.
Green Squares (
talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- No, time has nothing to do with it, which was why I didn't reference it in the "was it a valid deletion" discussion. In the case of CSD - there is no previous consensus on a time limit for a CSD. I don't necessarily agree with an instant one, but then I also think articles should contain something before being saved. Don't hit the save button until you have a "keepable" (containing something (verifiable and with verification included in reliable, referenced sources) other than the title) article. Follow that mantra, and it will save you alot of arguing in AfD and (in this case) DRV.
Usrnme h8er (
talk ·
contribs) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Congratulations
DGG, you are the first editor on this thread that got it right! The admins and hall monitors should read and learn. Be a man and post an +AFD and stop deleting articles to attain fame with
Barnstars.
Green Squares (
talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- As I have said repeatedly: RE-CREATE THE DAMN ARTICLES. STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT. If you have more information, put it in. If you don't have more information, if this "the Lithuanian Hemorrhoid Chess Set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess{{chess-stub}}" and "the Fluorescent Green Chess Set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess {{chess-stub}}" and "the Blork Spoogis Chess Set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess{{chess-stub}}" is all you've got, then they'll just get deleted again.
DS (
talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I gather then there is no objection to re-creation?
DGG (
talk) 17:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- None, if he includes more goddamn information. Which is what I've been saying since last night. Put them in his userspace and let him work on them there. But they weren't even stubs when I deleted them.
DS (
talk) 17:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Don't put the articles in my userspace, you put the recreated articles back where you incorrectly deleted them from, this is on your head not mine!
Green Squares (
talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oh wait, I missed a sentence. #2 said "The French Regence chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess. The chess set was named after the
Café de la Régence in
Paris." So, okay. I made a mistake when I said that it was only one sentence. It was only two sentences. Still doesn't assert any notability. You can write them one at a time and include all the information about notability before you click "save", and it'll be fine. But you created a bunch of articles and left them all in the same condition.
DS (
talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You have already been told, recreate the articles where you deleted them. The articles are legitimate, you were wrong, how put them back!
Green Squares (
talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse I would suggest that by including calling people a
WP:DICK, by typing in caps (i.e. yelling at them), and saying "you have already been told", you are harming your case, and truly being disruptive to this process. My recommendation: create an article about "notable speciality chess sets", and include the ones you noted above (and more!). Link it to the article on chess. Your information will be viewed by far more readers in that manner. (
talk→ Bwilkins / BMW
←track) 18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ahem..., it was the deleter, not the creator who yelled here. —
Sebastian 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I believe the admin acted too quickly in deleting the articles. As far as I can tell, the author was given no chance to do a "hangon". But since they are gone, I suggest that the author write longer articles off-line and then create the articles.
Bubba73
(talk), 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Having looked at the deleted contents, I'd say that all (with the possible exception of French Regence) are clearly A3 cases. That they were speedied under the wrong criteria does not negate the fact that they should have been speedied. I would like to point out that there is no grace period for articles; whether an admin declines to speedy delete articles that meet the criteria but are very new is entirely up to them—it's prudent to check to see if a very new article is still being worked on, but not required by policy. Frankly, I think DS and GS both need to step back, chill, and maintain
civility. I would not be averse to userfying these articles; considering that, if restored to article space, the articles would still be subject to CSD A3 and could be deleted by any other admin who comes along, I find GS's resistance to this idea somewhat baffling. In the future, if you're starting a new article, you probably shouldn't hit "save" until you've got more content than a simple restatement of the title, and if you need to see what you've got so far, use the preview button; that way this sort of thing can be averted. —
Gwalla |
Talk 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I remember a long time ago, after getting a couple of new stubs CSD'd within minutes, that I was told this: Before you click SAVE for the very first time, ensure you have a few wikilinks and at least 2 or 3 verifiable references. Then, tag the talkpage with a verfiable and valid project. Do this, as oft as ye shall create them. Take
this one for example <-- it stayed (although still needs expansion). (
talk→ Bwilkins / BMW
←track) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Bwilkins nails it. If your article hasn't got anything in it, it's going to be A3'd by most any admin. Endorse and suggest, as noted above, that the articles be recreated in userspace, built out to where they'll stand on their own, then moved live. An aside: the comments of the article creator, both here and to other editors on talk pages elsewhere, are egregiously incivil; I highly suggest that
User:Green Squares tone down the rhetoric quite a lot.
Tony Fox
(arf!) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- advice GS, I appreciate your note on my talk page, but what you are doing is not helping things here. Your purpose should be to get the articles, not win the argument. We should not be deleting articles still being written, but it happens. Just find a better reference and rewrite it. I am not willing to guess if there will be one, for I don't known the subject
DGG (
talk) 20:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. CSD A1 is meant to delete articles lacking the context to be expanded on -- doesn't apply here, they are clearly specific to their subjects. CSD A3 is meant to delete articles with no content at all (e.g. empty pages, or only external links) -- doesn't apply here. CSD A7 doesn't cover chess sets with no assertion of importance. So I think we're fresh out of speedy deletion reasons that could be used. These were 1-sentence articles, maybe, but there's no requirement that I'm aware of that we can't have 1-sentence stubs. I've certainly seen plenty in my time. Just undelete them so we can move on with life. AFD them if they don't improve.
Mango
juice
talk 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia is
not a bureaucracy, those articles contained zero content, and their creator would be better off spending time creating versions which do actually assert and demonstrate notability rather than coming to DRV and throwing insults around. --
Stormie (
talk) 02:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Weak overturn, since I don't think they met the speedy deletion criteria (The "no assertion" A7 criterion applies to people and organizations, not to things), but I agree with DGG that recreating them with better sourcing, and some more content might be a less bureaucratic procedure. (As the articles stood, I don't think they would fare all that well at AFD.)
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 08:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, because there's nothing really worth undeleting and insisting on following process for its rather a time-waster: just write the articles with actual content and be done with it. --
CalendarWatcher (
talk) 12:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- overturn Not A7. Had sources which make there be content actually worth preserving and I expect that given time these can likely be expanded into larger articles anyways. If there is a problem they should be taken to AfD.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. Controversial closures should be discussed at AfD and this clearly is one.--
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I have advocating overturning above. (Sorry,
Bubba73, I know that you had not committed yourself either way, and didn't mean to imply that you had.) That said, I would like to observe that if
User:Green Squares before posting one of these articles had put half the effort into it that he's put into his effort to overturn the articles' deletion, the article would never have been deleted. He could then have moved onto the next article, done the same for it, and so forth, and by now we might have four serviceable starts to articles instead of this absurd tempest in a teapot.
DS may have been a bit precipitous in deleting the articles (it's actually hard to judge without seeing the articles - which is why I relied on the comments of Bubba73, who had). But Green Squares' efforts to put DS in his place are a waste of time. Just write the articles already.
Krakatoa (
talk) 03:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion but allow re-creation per CalendarWatcher. --
Metropolitan90
(talk) 20:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion but allow re-creation per many above, and speedy close this discussion, which has lost most of its purpose since the outcome, minus the procedural issues, is pretty much agreed (i.e., the author can try again to create meaningful articles). The hostility and incivility in this discussion is troubling and should not be continued elsewhere.
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 01:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. I believe recreation gives too little credit to the effort it takes for the infrastructure of an article, such as tags, categories, and templates. —
Sebastian 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn, A speedy deletion was not warranted. It is quite clear that the actual article creator did not have sufficient time to expand the article before it was deleted. They should have been placed in AFD rather than speedied. I strongly support an overturn. If there is still a concern, then an AFD should be opened.
Smallman12q (
talk) 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
