Shemspeed ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was deleted out of process by User:JzG through a G11 reasoning. This was followed by salting the page, even though no creation spamming or even the threat to do so was evident. I discussed the matter with the admin in question, but he refused to revert his actions, so I am making this listing. Shemspeed is a notable music label, the article of which was written perfectly fine and had proper sourcing on the topic. It didn't fall at all under a G11 deletion.

This nomination is in conjunction with the L'CHAIM Vodka nomination below, which is the other article also deleted by Jzg. Silver seren ^C 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• We generally consider writing an article on your own company or website to be a bad idea, a conflict of interest and all round ill-advised. I am at a loss to understand why Silver seren considers it worth bringing this here. The author also wrote a vanity autobiography (at AfD); if kept maybe we could redirect as if the user scrapes notability it's unlikely they rate two separate articles. Most of their notability is likely to come form the brouhaha surrounding their paid editing, of course. Guy ( Help!) 22:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• We generally consider it a bad idea because such articles are usually written badly. This one was not and is very clearly notable. It was not written like an advertisement, so a G11 deletion was completely improper. Silver seren ^C 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• G11? "Unambiguously promotional"? Really? Not in the cache I see. And CoI isn't a speedy deletion criterion. Deletion process not correctly followed, so we must overturn.— S Marshall T/ C 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Speedy list at AfD. Most speedy deletions, including G11, should be listed at XfD on a reasonable request. If someone wants a discussion, let them have it. CSD was not created to prevent wanted discussions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Since the issue significantly concerns content rather then purely process, and no AFD was involved it seems temporary undeletion for review pending the outcome of this DR would be wise. Alternatiely just list at AFD or overturn (i.e. just undelete for now). Nil Einne ( talk) 00:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The NY Times coverage makes the assertion of significance credible. Notability issues may remain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• I am the author of the Shemspeed entry (and, contrary to the assumption of JzG, not the owner of Shemspeed). Under Criteria for speedy deletion, it states, “Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.” How could this case be deemed obvious? As anyone who reads the entry can see, Shemspeed has been covered in known media outlets such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post. I wrote the entry from a neutral point of view about a notable label and therefore it does not fall under the G11 (“unambiguous advertising or promotion”) reason given for its speedy deletion. JzG’s reckless bypassing of the regular deletion process is unfair. As others have stated above, there should at the very least be a review process here. -- Bernie44 ( talk) 00:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn with the possibility of a Speedy Afd, cache version doesn't look terribly spammy to me and it has received decent coverage. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: Page does not qualify for G11, and it is unclear why the deleting admin thought it did, nor why salting was indicated. COI is not a reason for deletion. Bovlb ( talk) 16:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Not overt spam. Drmies ( talk) 03:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Not a speedy candidate. Rlendog ( talk) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn . I was inclined to be very skeptical of this eds. work when I saw the articles about it, but when I went to the actual articles, I saw a real attempt at writing acceptable articles, though in most cases quite carelessly, with considerably less skill than they advertised. but this was an acceptable article with only minor changes, and not really more promotional than our general run of articles on similar subjects (which , admittedly, is not saying very much--the ones that aren't written by PR staff are written by fans, & I'd be hard put to say which do it worse). It'll pass AfD, I think, because of the Jerusalem Post article which is very substantial. I see no reason really to list there. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Could someone please point me to the commuity discussion where we decided to stop deleting people's vanity articles about their own companies and webshites? I'm off to add these to Kohs' breaching experiments at Category:Successful Wikipedia spammers. Guy ( Help!) 10:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Could you point out where in WP:G11 it says that "you can speedy an article if you think your opinion overrides due process"? The Cavalry ( Message me) 11:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To clarify: the problem here isn't that the article was deleted, but instead that it was speedied when it should have been AfDed, and that it was SALTed without any reason to salt it. In these circumstances, I always AfD: AfD is fairer, either results in a better article or a deleted article - and (more underhandedly) any deletion sticks better. The Cavalry ( Message me) 11:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - In addition to the above, Mywikipro.com, the ones behind the above article, and the other articles it generated is being evaluated at COIN Mywikipro.com [1] and was being evaluated at COIN at the time of the speedy deletion. Administrators only have broad consensus to use speedy deletion to bypass deletion discussions, not other discussions. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion could not be used to act on the Shemspeed article since COIN was discussing the matter. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per nom. — Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 11:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn salting, overturn deletion  Both actions were out of process.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Cautious overturn I'm not in favor of re-hashing process just for process' sake, so if people agree it would be deleted at AFD, that would be a good enough reason to endorse. But people seem to be split or silent on that point, therefore overturn without prejudice to AFD. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and, as far as I can see, not suitable of deletion. Anyway the speedy deletion and the salting were improper actions. Cavarrone ( talk) 13:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

L'CHAIM Vodka ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was deleted out of process by User:JzG through a G11 reasoning. This was followed by salting the page, even though no creation spamming or even the threat to do so was evident. I discussed the matter with the admin in question, but he refused to revert his actions, so I am making this listing. L'CHAIM is a notable product, whose article could have definitely used some amount of work, but was not even close to the level of a G11 deletion.

This nomination is in conjunction with the Shemspeed nomination above, which is the other article also deleted by JzG. Silver seren ^C 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Article was independently tagged as spam, was written in heavily promotional tone and was written by paid editor. Guy ( Help!) 22:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• The article was tagged with Template:Advert, which is meant to be improved through normal editing. The article was not that promotional and had proper sourcing and a paid editor writing it is irrelevant. Silver seren ^C 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Speedy list at AfD. Most speedy deletions, including G11, should be listed at XfD on a reasonable request. If someone wants a discussion, let them have it. CSD was not created to prevent wanted discussions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• As per above, since the issue significantly concerns content rather then purely process, and no AFD was involved it seems temporary undeletion for review pending the outcome of this DR would be wise. Alternatiely just list at AFD or overturn (i.e. just undelete for now). Nil Einne ( talk) 00:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AFD. This is awfully spammy, but there's enough of a skeleton to the article and enough coverage to make the deletion a matter for community decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• As the author of the L'Chaim Vodka entry, I find this speedy deletion unacceptable. It seems that if a user would like to improve the entry, they are more than welcome to do so. There are plenty of vodka entries on Wikipedia, and L'Chaim Vodka is as notable as many of them, with references to prove it. I would hardly say the article is "heavily promotional" - I even included a statement about the fact that all domestic vodkas are kosher, which weakens the kosher marketing campaign of L'Chaim Vodka. I believe that in itself demonstrates the neutrality of the entry. This speedy deletion should be reversed. -- Bernie44 ( talk) 01:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: Page does not qualify for G11, and it is unclear why the deleting admin thought it did, nor why salting was indicated. Paid editing is not a reason for article deletion and I am a little disturbed that the deleting admin cited it as such. Bovlb ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• overturn , it passes speedy--but I doubt this version would pass AfD. I would advise the ed. not to use phrases such as "With the scrutiny it must undergo in order to gain kosher certification, the vodka is attended [sic] to appeal to Jews and non-Jews alike. “Kosher has always stood for better quality and higher standards,” Mizraji has said. “There are so many vodka brands that rely on either price point or appearance of the label or bottle; we needed to offer something that was more meaningful." --something like that, especially when it isn't actually relevant (as admitted above & in the article) but just an advertising point, is promotional. So, not surprisingly, is the "marketing" section. And I;m not sure how the proprietor raised his seed money is encyclopedic information--rather, it belongs on his web site. Some actual information about sales/market share would be helpful--it is hard to tell at this point if this is actually a significant product. And people who pay for articles are at the very least entitled to correct spelling and careful proofreading. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. G11 indicates "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Advertising could be argued, but substantially more is needed for labelling it "unambiguous advertising". L.tak ( talk) 20:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Not a G11 candidate. Rlendog ( talk) 19:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The article contained some unencyclopedic cruft, but that can simply be removed, and there are enough sources to establish notability and base a neutral article on.  -- Lambiam 19:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, but take to AfD. This isn't quite a G11 candidate! The Cavalry ( Message me) 10:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per nominator. First and foremost, the page was deleted out of process and should be given the chance for due process. We can discuss whether it should be deleted for advertizing and/or other reasons if someone wants to start an AfD. — Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 11:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn salting, overturn deletion  Both actions were out of process.  At that point there are two possibilities, (1) there is someone willing to make an AfD nomination, (2) there is no one that is willing to make an AfD nomination.  Procedural AfD nominations coming out of DRV are a failed experiment.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Send it to AFD, where I imagine it will be fairly promptly deleted anyway (based on the most recent version). Moreschi ( talk) 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Cautious overturn I'm not in favor of re-hashing process just for process' sake, so if people agree it would be deleted at AFD, that would be a good enough reason to endorse. But people seem to be split or silent on that point, therefore overturn without prejudice to AFD. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Speedy list at AfD, per SmokeyJoe. Cavarrone ( talk) 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In the RfD discussion there were several good faith recommendations for keeping, which included explicit counters to the good faith deletion recommendations. This was completely ignored though by Ruslik0 who closed the discussion as "Speedy delete as G11 (spam/political advocacy)" (and then deleted it with the same rationale), despite that fact that not one commenter in the entire discussion characterised it as such nor called for speedy deletion for any other reason.

In discussion on his talk page Ruslik0 has defended his actions as saying that if any administrator thinks something is spam they can speedy delete it as such, regardless of what anybody else thinks and that any discussion about it, ongoing or otherwise, is irrelevant. This is not the way speedy deletion works though - pages must clearly meet the criteria and it must be clear that they will always be deleted at a deletion discussion. When an active deletion discussion has good faith recommendations for courses of action other than deletion, then by definition the page cannot meet the speedy deletion criteria.

Yes I am biased with respect to this specific debate, but I can easily see how the debate could be closed as keep or no consensus based on the arguments. A delete outcome based on the discussion is possible, but I think a stretch. A deletion that completely ignores the arguments though is out of process. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• {{ tempundelete}}'d. T. Canens ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• OK, this is weird. As I understand it, what Ruslik was trying to delete wasn't so much the redirect, but the text underlying it. This page originated as an essay-ish...thing... that was later redirected in an decidedly unorthodox manner that retained the entire original content in wikitext. As far as I could determine, none of the RfD participants noticed the unorthodox nature of this redirect or the questionable content, so the silence in RFD shouldn't be taken either way on the G11 question. Since the original content is plainly unsuitable for Wikipedia, I think the best solution under these peculiar circumstances is for DRV to keep the current revisions deleted (as no merge seemed to have been done in conjunction with the redirect), create a redirect from Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals to Pharmacology#Medicine development and safety testing, and then list the new redirect for discussion at RFD afresh. T. Canens ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn-And a good trout slap to Ruslik0. Speedy deleting a page in the middle of an XfD when several users in good standing have called for it to be kept is wholly inappropriate. The purpose of speedy deletion is to avoid unnecessary deletion discussions, not to allow administrators to overrule community consensus.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Yup, I think Fyre2387 has nailed it. Our main role here is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and it wasn't. T. Canens' wise suggestions about what to do with the wikitext deserve serious consideration, of course, but let's consider them at the RfD that shouldn't have been closed early, rather than here. Overturn and relist until the discussion has run its proper duration.— S Marshall T/ C 22:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with that, in my view, is that the 15k bytes of wikitext is not really within RFD's usual expertise. RfD usually discusses (1) whether a redirect should or should not exist at a particular location and what the redirect should point to, but it is entirely a different matter to decide (2) whether 15KB of text should be retained in the page history, which is not something usually discussed at RFD, because redirects usually only have a single line with the target and at most a couple more categorizing templates. The process is a total mess because the RFD was discussing only (1) and then Ruslik came in and deleted it based on (2). Of course when there are reasonable disagreements over whether a speedy criterion applies, admins should not speedy delete, but in this case the RFD debate sheds absolutely no light on the proper answer to (2). It simply did not consider the question at all. Of course we can send the whole mess back to RFD, but I think that we need not defer to RFD on a question that is squarely outside its area of expertise, and that the better course is for us to resolve (2) ourselves, and then send (1) back for discussion. T. Canens ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The G11 call is reasonably contested. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist per the convincing argument of Fyre2387 and S Marshall. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I do not know why Thryduulf is trying to defend this crap. This is just a waste of time. We do not redirect dozens of spam pages created every day to normal articles. If this overturned I will simply revert the redirect to its original state and send it to AFD. Ruslik_ Zero 07:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comments from DRV-nominator. Firstly I'm not defending "this crap", what I'm doing is defending the integrity of RfD against misuses of speedy deletion. Incorrect speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things to Wikipedia, and countering them can never be a waste of time. While dozens of spam pages every day may not be redirected to normal articles, some are (and per WP:ATD it wouldn't surprise me if more should be than are, but that's beside the point). The vast majority of these redirects are not at all controversial and are widely regarded as a Good Thing. Some are not though, and those get nominated at RfD. Once nominated at RfD the redirect is discussed on its merits and the course of action taken is determined according to consensus - part of the fourth pillar that Wikipedia is built on. The consensus in this case was that the title was not spam, and no one editor gets to overrule that.
  It's true that I did not notice the unusual nature of the redirect - as a regular I always check the links, history and usage stats, and other things as appropriate to the specific discussion. This rarely involves looking at the actual redirect page itself as almost all redirects are the same (this appears to have been one of the exceptions though). The correct course of action for an editor discovering the wikitext would have been to mention it in the discussion so that others were aware rather the unilaterally speedy delete it. Had I been aware of the text, my recommendation would have been to delete it while retaining the redirect.
  While normally converting a redirect back to an article and then sending it to AfD is going to be non-controversial (and is sometimes recommended at RfD), I'm not certain whether it would be if this was contrary to an explicit consensus that the title should be a redirect - it certainly wouldn't be an example of best practice. If you want to do this, then you should probably get consensus to do so - an ongoing discussion would be the perfect place, in the absence of one then probably the best would be a new RfD. In an AfD I suspect that I'd recommend redirecting, but arguments presented for other courses of action may be persuasive. I'm not objecting to an AfD though, as long as it isn't done out of process or otherwise against consensus.
  

While the closure was (imo) incorrect, it wasn't premature and so any return to RfD would need to be a new or relisted one (I'm sure everyone can agree that a discussion open for at absolute most a few hours would be pointless in the extreme). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. It was not a speedy G11, either as an article or a redirect. It was an essay, and properly deletable as such, and I don't see the point of making it a redirect out of it, but still, not a speedy. It does have article potential, biut to preserve the text for a while userification would be more appropriate than the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Weak unredirect and list at AfD, the best venue for dealing with the essay content. The essay seems to be neither useful nor harmful, so an AfD may end as redirect and be a waste of time. Flatscan ( talk) 04:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Clearly not a speedy candidate. Not seeing a particular need for T. Canens' suggestion either; if the page works as a redirect, I don't see that the history is a problem. But that could be discussed at AfD or RfD (of course, the AfD result may well be redirect). Rlendog ( talk) 19:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - Not a speedy deletion candidate. The page started out as a detailed essay, [2] then was changed to a redirect by Haruth, [3] probably as a way to get rid of the troubled essay. In relisting, suggest that the discussion include talk on WP:REDIRECT#DELETE. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Common Dead ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was moved after the AfD to the Incubator, small improvements were made and then moved back to mainpace. I believe the article should go through a DRV in this case. mabdul 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh and the last DRV was in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13. mabdul 10:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Background See my talk page, and the link from there to the talk page of WikiProject Metal, for the discussion leading up to this page's return to the mainspace.— S Marshall T/ C 11:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • WT:WikiProject Metal#Article Redemption. Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• weak relist Article has been improved, but sources are largely the same ( diff). I'm really not quite sure where to go here. Consensus can change and it's been 6 months (after which time we'll often allow a keep result to be relisted). I really don't foresee a different outcome, but it's possible as the article is pretty borderline (lots of sources, though those sources take submissions from the readership (of course, so does the NYT, but...) I think the recreation was in good faith (see the WikiProject Metal talk page) and I don't see the harm in a new discussion. Hobit ( talk) 12:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Looking more carefully at the last DRV, I am thinking a relist makes sense. At the DRV some of the arguments at the AfD were rebutted (in particular if the sourcing was reliable). Not sure one way or the other, but there is something worth discussing again. Hobit ( talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Article Well I was going to return to the Project Metal page to ask something but now I see there is a discussion here. Haha I was wondering why the page was missing for a while at all? I have read the rules and I thought articles had to meet certain standards to be published and that this band meets the standards. None of the sources are trivial by Wikipedia definition. I don't know if I "count" or not to say anything (I have only started editing to Wikipedia, I do not have an alias) but I started editing on the Fear Factory page and noticed Common Dead mentioned and did not have its own page which was very strange. --Ray 24.201.20.167 ( talk) 13:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh and PS - for what it is worth, I added some of the sources myself (the Metal Underground/Pure Grain Audio/Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles Magazine Source), they were not there when I arrived. So they should be many different sources that where not there before it was in the Incubator. -- Ray 24.201.20.167 ( talk) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• Afd2 if you like It would have been simpler to just do that rather than come here. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nobody can seem to give a good reason to why this article was ever deleted in the first place. Legit citations are here and in context and there are many of them. It meets the criteria. What am I missing here? Please explain.--Ray 24.201.20.167 ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• • @DGG: I ask User:TParis (the closing admin) and he directed me to User:Backtable (who said that I should go to DRV).
    • I'm a bit confused by Backtable's response, the move by Backtable came with the comment "Article now meets Wikipedia standards and is ready to graduate from the Article Incubator". Yet his response to you was that "he" didn't know how many of the sources were reliable and he wasn't aware of the AFD. Since a main route to the incubator is AfD that seems odd, and saying an article meets wikipedia standards without assessing reliability of sources is also quite peculiar. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • @Ray: Are they really notable? Per WP:MUSIC they fail all criteria without any question. (except #1 which should be clarified in this discussion) mabdul 20:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

@mabdul, I'm not sure how familiar you may be with the metal music scene, but as far as sources, it doesn't get any more legitimate than Blabbermouth, Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles, and Metal Underground as sort of a "big three". Their reviews are not upon request, they write and cover bands as they see fit. This band, as I even discovered it, has sources pertaining to the latter two at least (not sure about Blabbermouth, at least Google doesn't produce any results for that one) plus all those other ones that apparently previous editors submitted but are equally fair. All of the sources as far as I've checked them (and you can too) meet the criteria in the first part of that WP:MUSIC criteria that I also read over today. All of the included sources are all uninfluenced by the band or artist. So again I'm not sure what the real issue is here regarding this article being on the brink of deletion (twice now). I mean if certian editors are not familiar with metal bands and their notoriety, all I can say is don't let that impede on the rest of us. --Ray 24.201.20.167 ( talk) 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

• We need to close this deletion review. The place to argue about notability is AfD. Deletion review is just here to see that the process is correctly followed. The process Ray employed was:- 1) Try to improve the article; 2) Ask an experienced Wikipedian whether it was ready for the mainspace; and 3) Receive the answer "yes". Backtable then exercised his judgment and put the incubated article into the mainspace, and we can safely assume that Backtable knows and understands the music notability criteria. Process correctly followed, so DRV has no role.— S Marshall T/ C 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist at AfD, if the last AfD closer can't decide whether the small improvements make enough of a difference. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD. If I am reading the diffs correctly (the organization and formatting changes confuse things a little), there are only a few new sources, but the last DRV was no consensus to overturn with an open question about sourcing. AfD is much better at evaluating sources than DRV. Thanks to everyone, for moving this article through the process patiently. Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply