Skiddle ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article has been cleaned up, rewritten. I don't think this revised page content was reviewed despite calls for this to happen. I've spoken to the editor who deleted it and he's restored it to here /info/en/?search=User:Lancshero/Skiddle - please can this be reviewed and the page be restored? Happy to see another vote on this new content if needed - but seems like a waste of time asking for someone to work on it only for it then to be deleted. Thanks Lancshero ( talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• This was only deleted yesterday, then userfied, then you want it restored all in one day. Go away and give the deleting admin a chance to respond. This listing at DRV is premature. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Hi - talked to the deleting admin, they did respond and asked me to start a deletion review. I thought i'd followed the right process. Also, i'm not asking for it to be restored in one day - just asking for it to be restored in general, I know it's likely to take longer than a day ;) -- Lancshero ( talk) 09:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The deleting admin asked Lancshero to come to DRV:

  Hi, just dropping you a line as it seems you've deleted an article I worked on for quite some time last night. It's was /info/en/?search=Skiddle - I think I did a pretty good job of tidying, cutting a lot of the garbage out and making it notable (while they are a smaller agent they're still fairly well known, I think I've probably used them at least 3 times this year so far and I maybe only go to 10 gigs a year maximum). The vote on the deletion page seemed tied at 3 for keep and 3 for delete and I don't think anyone had time to review my edits before you deleted it. Could you please take a look at my edits compared the version live yesterday and let me know if you could restore the article? Many thanks Lancshero ( talk) 13:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

        I restored it and moved it to User:Lancshero/Skiddle. You can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review and it is easier to discuss if people can see it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

         Lancshero. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  Cunard ( talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Lancshero's significant work on the article renders {{ db-repost}} inapplicable. Here are three sources (among others in the article):
  1. "Preston-based Skiddle ends financial year on a high". Lancashire Evening Post. 2015-04-30. Archived from the original on 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2015-12-01.
  2. Binns, Simon (2015-08-12). "PR Agency One is just the ticket for Skiddle". Prolific North. Archived from the original on 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

     The article notes:

     Skiddle works with more than 50,000 event promoters and sells tickets for over 100,000 events in the UK and Europe, as well as offering hotel and restaurant bookings. Its three core focuses are club nights, live music events, and festivals.

  3. McCarthy, John (2015-03-31). "Skiddle to 3D print wellington boots on site in anticipation of rainy UK festival season". The Drum. Archived from the original on 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2015-12-01.
  Cunard ( talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation because it seems significantly improved. However, I still might well !vote to delete the article. I wish we had a clear way of denying these sort of pastiche encyclopedia articles. Thincat ( talk) 11:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Not sure what sort of timeframe the deletion review works on, or how it comes to a close? Do two editors saying 'allow recreation' mean I should recreate or do I need to wait for a set amount of time? Sorry - not done this before! Thanks Lancshero ( talk) 15:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Reviews last seven days (or more) and I don't think this one will be closed early. You must wait until someone (usually an administrator) closes the review formally and then you may (or may not!) be allowed to recreate the draft as a full article. You are can improve the draft meanwhile and continue to comment here if you want. Thincat ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Thincat - I did just find that on the Deletion Review page, I should've spotted that earlier :) Lancshero ( talk) 16:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Mmm. Looking at the top of the page it isn't so very clear what happens when you are requesting recreation rather than appealing a deletion decision. My reply was based on my experience of DRV (and of course you are not the first person to be perplexed by all this!). Thincat ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)of what generally happens. reply

• Endorse deletion. Maybe I'm just reading the history wrong, but from what I can see, the AfD was closed at 5:15 am, 30 November 2015, and the only changes to the article since then are purely boilerplate edits as part of the userfication process. Where are the significant improvements people are talking about? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• RoySmith ( talk · contribs), thank you for pointing this out. I had not noticed that the changes were made prior to the AfD closing. Lancshero rewrote the article at 00:28, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC) and commented at the AfD at 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

  The AfD was closed 10 hours later at 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC). In the intervening time, no one evaluated Lancshero's changes.

  Three of the four "delete" votes cited promotionalism (in addition to minor notability) as deletion rationales.

  AfD nominator DGG: "Promotional article for relatively minor site. Beyond my abilities to clean."

  Rayman60: "If it does pass any sort of notability test, the article will have to be stripped down so bare - from what I can see on the article, every point fails to be encyclopaedic, non-promotional, neutral in tone and referenced."

  Edwardx: "Even if the company could be deemed notable, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to put in the effort required to turn the current article into something acceptable."

  I think that Lancshero's significant cleaning up of the article prior to the AfD close should not be held against his requesting restoration since no one reviewed his changes.

  I think it'd be reasonable and fair to relist this article at AfD to see if Lancshero's changes address the notability and promotionalism concerns. Otherwise, no one will have reviewed Lancshero's hard work at AfD.

  Would you support a relist?

  Cunard ( talk) 05:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Relist. No opinion on whether the new version should be kept or deleted, but such a major rewrite presented in the waning hours of the AfD should have resulted in a relist to allow proper review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The article hasn't been improved since deletion and no plausible evidence that the discussion was wrong had been put forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Spartaz - I made the changes before the page was deleted which is maybe why you're not seeing them? I think this is also what RoySmith said - but then clarified with "I had not noticed that the changes were made prior to the AfD closing. Lancshero rewrote the article at 00:28, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC) and commented at the AfD at 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC). The AfD was closed 10 hours later at 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC). In the intervening time, no one evaluated Lancshero's changes." The previous page was two thirds longer, had two thirds more references (some self promotional, their blog etc). Other editors had stated that the page would need to be cut down considerably to be kept but they didn't have time. I spent time to review and cut back and now I think this is a vastly improved - although short - page. The AfD was closed without anyone reviewing the changes as far as I can tell. Thanks, Lancshero ( talk) 10:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

In that case then I agree that this should be relisted as the improvements were not discussed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Basis solely on the arguments provided in the discussion the closed should be no other than no consensus. Source provided by Dual Freq suggest notability, this maybe an administrative supervote. If considering the votes is to 3 in favor of keep, 1 merge and 3 delete including the nominator, a clear lack of consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Valoem I'm curious how you came to this AFD. You didn't vote in the discussion, you haven't discussed this with me and I reversed one of your NAC AFDs yesterday - and you were really butthurt about it and ran to Cunard looking for support that I was unfair and evil. I can't help thinking that the only way you could have come to this was by going through my contributions - presumably in the hope of finding something to complain about in revenge for my undoing your NAC. I'd be very interested in your explanation. Revenge DRV nominations are not classy.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Also noting you did not notify me of this nomination as DRV guidance requires. So not classy... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse on behavioural grounds. The scope of legitimate DRVs is limited, and does not include revenge. Nominator has a history of inappropriate non-admin AfD closes; note also passive-aggressive whining at User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2015_November_30. Reyk _YO! 10:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • As for the close itself, I see that it was relisted twice. Every editor who commented after the first relist agreed that the article should not remain in mainspace. I think it's fair to close the AfD along those lines. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Now that I've seen the undeleted article, I affirm my endorsement. Reyk _YO! 08:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is massive inappropriate accusation from the both of you Reyk, please highlight some inappropriate NACs in my history, you have every right to question my closures, however all closure I have dealt with you in the past have come to the same conclusion therefore my judgement is sound. I gave a perfectly solid rationale in my reason for DRV by providing sources, discussion reasons and vote counting. Upon reviewing this article here ACT Alberta I see neither participation nor editing of the article in question, so I too am curious as to how you came to it. And in answer to your question I came across it by skimming through AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rubbish... You are even echoing RANs argument on my talkpage in your nomination so you can only have come to this from stalking my contributions. I hate to assume bad faith but there has to be a limit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Valoem On that subject - you went to RAN's page to notify him of the DRV and made the following comment unsurprising when you considered the administrator.. How can you honestly say there was no animus in your nomination after that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You have a history of closing against consensus and have been questioned numerous times. Am I wrong to say that? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You are indeed wrong. My record in closing is fine bearing in mind that I generally close out the last remaining AFDs that no-one else wants to deal with but don't let facts get in the way of fancy and assuming bad faith. The only person here you are making look bad is yourself but feel to carry on making yourself look ignorant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

??? I apologize for not notifying you that was an error on my end. I saw that you were involved in the DRV below and assume you would see this. If you are trying to goad me, it is not going to work, and can be seen as poor form. If you do not believe my reasons than fine so be it, but I remain curious as to how you came to ACT Alberta. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you notice my closing out the AFD backlog yesterday? Interesting that you choose not to respond to evidence I provided of your making the nomination while showing clear animus against me. tacit acceptance anyone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• I would prefer editors to observe the close in question instead of the drama involved. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the closing statement was perfunctory, not providing any reason for the deviation. The guidance of WP:DGFA was not followed, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew D. ( talk) 12:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn No consensus for deletion. Closed with a supervote. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Please can an uninvolved admin engage with Valoem concerning his use of this discussion as a platform to make personal attacks against me? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Where are the personal attacks? I just read the thread twice looking for them so I could warn him. You admit you close the controversial AFDs, and he thinks you add in a supervote when you close them, I also think the same thing. You tend to shift no-consensus closes into deletes by discounting a few keep views, instead of acting dispassionately. He is not stalking you, he is doing the same thing I am doing, when I see a bad close, I look to see if there have been other bad closes by the same person. That isn't stalking, it is best practices. When you see someone make a spelling or grammatical error, you check a few of the past edits to see if they made the same mistakes elsewhere. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

With respect Richard this comment was not aimed at you... especially as you followed it with another unevidenced attack on my integrity. Please don't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You word everything with such drama, "feel [free] to carry on making yourself look ignorant" and "clear animus against me" and "personal attacks" and "unevidenced attack on my integrity", if you cannot take legitimate focused criticism of your actions, you are on the wrong website. If all closes were perfect, we would not need the DRV process. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Spartaz you have made so many attacks me in the past saying things such as "you should be more experienced" despite this, all my closes and DRVs have favored me so I've simply dropped the issue. Now here anyone can it is in fact you who is making the personal attacks with comments such as "you were really butthurt about it and ran to Cunard looking for support that I was unfair and evil" all this could boomerang if you pursue it any further. Sometimes the grasshopper lies heavy, so they say. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• OK folks, can we get a temp. undelete of the article? IMO the !vote was NC, but if there weren't any meaningful sources (as some delete !votes indicated) it may be that delete was the right outcome. But I can't tell from here. Also, I've got opinions on everyone's behavior, but I don't think unsolicited advice is going to be helpful. If you ask (on my talk page or e-mail) I'll be happy to give my 2 cents. Hobit ( talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• My view on this may be skewed in Spartaz' favour by the fact that I'm currently incredibly grateful to him for his assistance with an unrelated matter, so I won't put a word in bold on here. But... as so often at DRV there's a lot going on behind the scenes. From the histories, I believe that on 5th November, User:Clarityfiend read our article on Jonathan M. Wainwright (general) and seems to have been moved to look deeper. He created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Powell Page Wainwright, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1849–1870), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863). Clarityfiend is typically thorough and thoughtful, and I'm confident that he inspected, but decided not to AfD, Richard Wainwright (American Civil War naval officer), Richard Wainwright (Spanish–American War naval officer), and Richard Wainwright (Medal of Honor). This family has clearly distinguished itself by its service in the US military! It also, clearly, has a prolific and determined biographer.

  The three AfDs that Clarityfiend created that day all led to their respective articles being deleted, after a variable number of relistings in each case. (Irritatingly both the deleting sysops were among our primary DRV closers which makes these discussions harder to review.) At first glance, reading the discussion cold, I was with Hobit that this felt more like a "no consensus" outcome to me. But when I make a side-by-side comparison of the three subject AfDs in context, I find myself more in agreement with Spartaz. When closing against the snout-count I normally prefer a more detailed closing statement than this, but are we really comfortable saying that outcome wasn't within discretion?— S Marshall T/ C 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the compliment. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Encyclopedia entries for the subject are available, the argument was made that existing reference was insufficient without doing the simplest Google search to look for more. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• https://books.google.com/books?id=G0hEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA441
• https://books.google.com/books?id=ou4pAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA359

• Which of the Johnathan Mayhew Wainwrights I mentioned above is discussed in that book, Richard? The one we still have an article on, perhaps?— S Marshall T/ C 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Use your combo of brain and eyes to read the article, and then you tell me. It is an awesome combo when used. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• I can read our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright and our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright. For the moment I can also read our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright because Spartaz has temporarily undeleted it, but I can't read our article on Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright because that's still deleted at the moment. My question is which of these people are discussed in the books you linked? (My other question is why nobody ever bought the Wainwright family a baby names book.)— S Marshall T/ C 23:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• The person under discussion is "Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)" and he was born in 1821 and he died in 1863 according to the title of the article. Read the biography in the link I posted and see if he was born in the same year. Then you can double check to see if he died in the same year. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I genuinely can't, Richard. Google snippet view isn't showing me anything intelligible at all, certainly nothing as useful as a date of birth. I presume what's on your screen is somehow different from what's on mine. Perhaps the snippet view varies between countries?— S Marshall T/ C 01:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sorry for the snark, I take it back! It was published in 1892 so you should see the full text. You may have to be logged into Google. Sometimes for copyrighted works I can see more pages than other people. I think because when Google books was in beta I requested access as a beta tester. Do you accept my apology? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Your gracious apology is fully accepted, of course.— S Marshall T/ C 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've examined the first book, Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War. It does give a thorough biography of Wainwright. However, there are equally detailed bios of many other officers who also don't qualify for articles, e.g. Colonel James J. Van Horn, Captain S. C. Vedder, Captain G. S. Luttrell Ward, Captain J. Crittenden Watson, and Major William George Wedemeyer. A low ranking naval officer who "fell almost immediately" in a minor unnamed action isn't notable. The fact that there are copious writings on just about every conceivable aspect of the Civil War shouldn't skew things. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:NOTPAPER applies. If a subject receives substantial coverage in a biographical dictionary/encyclopedia, then he or she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. That "there are copious writings on just about every conceivable aspect of the Civil War" doesn't diminish from the subject's notability. Cunard ( talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The disagreement in the discussion is not reflected in the too brief closing statement. The closer should provide more information in the close to explain why it was closed that way. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Looking at the actual article, this was a good close because it was extremely clear it did not conceivably meet the standards of notability. The opposing arguments were essentially: ITSUSEFUL. But for a disputed close, it always helps to give a reason. I know the closer (whom I greatly respect, despite our occasional differences) prefers not to, but it would help to do this at least for disputes like this. I urge him to reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. No one in the discussion rebutted AfD participant Dual Freq ( talk · contribs)'s source, which provides substantial coverage of the subject.

  Dual Freq wrote:

  Additionally, he is mentioned individually, with several paragraphs, in Johnson, Rossiter (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. The Biographical Society of Boston. He was a "Notable American".

  That the subject received a detailed entry in a biographical dictionary/encyclopedia published 41 years after he died strongly establishes he is notable.

  Since the vote count was split and there was a disagreement over whether the sources established notability, "no consensus" is the only proper close. "Delete" would be reasonable if and only if no reliable sources were provided, which clearly is not the case here.

  Cunard ( talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• SmokeyJoe ( talk · contribs), Hobit ( talk · contribs), DGG ( talk · contribs), and S Marshall ( talk · contribs), I have reproduced the full text of the sources mentioned in the AfD and here. All three sources are in the public domain, and all discuss the a man named Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright who was born in 1821 and died in 1863, which matches the title of this article, Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863).
  1. Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. Boston: Biographical Society. p. 301. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

     The book notes on page 301:

     Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer, was born in New York city, July 27, 1821; son of the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew (q.v.) and Amelia Maria (Phelps) Wainwright. He entered the U.S. navy in 1841; became passed midshipman in 1843; was commissioned lieutenant in 1850; lieutenant-commander, 1861. He was lieutenant-commander on board the Harriet Lane, flagship of Commodore David D. Porter in the passage of the forts on the Mississipi, and he received the surrender of Commander Mitchell of the Confederate steamer Mississippi, and refused that officer the terms granted the officers of the fort on the ground that he had violated the flag of truce by firing the Mississipppi while the terms of capitulation were being arranged. He commanded the Harriet Lane in the gulf operations of 1862-63; and took possession of Galveston Bay in October, 1862. In the battle of Jan. 1, 1863, the Harriet Lane bore the brunt of the attack, and when the crew of the Confederate steamer Bayou City ran alongside and opened a musketry fire from behind a breastwork of cotton bales, Commander Wainwright was killed and his first lieutenant, Lea, mortally wounded. His son, Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright of the U.S. Naval academy, class of 1867, master on board the Mohican, San Blas, Mexico, died from wounds received in action with pirates, June 19, 1870; another son, Capt. Robert Powel Page Wainwright, of the 1st U.S. cavalry, was commended by Gen. Joseph Wheeler for good conduct at the battle of La Quasina, Cuba, 1808; and his daughter, Marie, became a prominent actress. Commander Wainwright's death occurred Jan. 1, 1863.

  2. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. 4. New York: J. T. White Company. 1895 [First published 1892]. p. 359. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

  The cover page says:

  Being the History of the United States

  Illustrated in the lives of the founders, builders, and defenders of the Republic, and of the men and women who are doing the work and moulding the thought of the present time.
  
  Edited by

  Distinguished biographers, selected from each state

  Revised and approved by the most eminent historians, scholars, and statesmen of the day
  
  Volume IV.
  
  New York

  James T. White & Company

  1895

  The book notes on page 359:

  Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer was born in New York July 27, 1821; son of Bishop Wainwright of the P. E. church. He entered the navy in 1827, became a passed midshipman in 1843, and a lieutenant in 1850, and in the civil war was engaged as commander of the Harriet Lane in the taking of New Orleans, Vicksburg and Galveston. Jan. 1, 1863, his vessel was attacked and captured by Confederates under Gen. Magruler, near Galveston, and he himself was killed in the fight.

  3. Powell, William Henry; Shippen, Edward, eds. (1892). Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War. Philadelphia: L. R. Hammersly & Company. p. 441. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

     The book notes on page 441:

     Commander Jonathan M. Wainwright, U.S.N. (deceased).

     Commander Jonathan Matthew Wainwright was born in the city of New York in July, 1821, and was killed in battle at Galveston Bay on January 1, 1863. He was a son of the well-known prelate of the same name, so long the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York.

     Commander Wainwright entered the navy as a midshipman in June, 1837, and performed the usual sea-duty of his grade until, in 1842, he was ordered to the Naval School, then at Philadelphia. He became a passed midshipman in 1843, in 1849 an acting master, and was commissioned as lieutenant in September, 1850. His service in the "Lexington," "San Jacinto," "Saratoga," "Dolphin," and other vessels did not differ from that of most junior lieutenants. Never very robust, he managed always to do his duty well, and was a great favorite with his messmates and shipmates on account of his pleasant manners and officer-like conduct. The outbreak of the Civil War found him engaged in special duty at Washington. He was ordered to the command of the "Harriet Lane," the well-known revenue streamer which had been transferred to the navy. She became the flag-ship of Commander (afterwards Admiral) Porter, of the Mortar Flotilla, during the operations against Vicksburg. In October, 1862, the "Harriet Lane" took part in the capture of Galveston as a part of Commander Renshaw's little squadron. Their tenure was not long, for on New Year's Day, 1863, the small squadron, some of which were ashore at low tide, was attacked by a Confederate force, which soon resumed control of the town and the bay. General Magruder had, for the water attack, fitted out three-steamers with cotton-bale defences and placed on board as many rifleman as could find room to act. They came down the bay at four A.M., and, as the "Harriet Lane" was the highest up, she was first attacked. Boarded by these vessels, swarming with sharp-shooters, the decks were swept by a shower of balls. Wainwright fell almost immediately, at the head of his men, endeavoring to repel boarders. The executive officer, Lea, was mortally wounded, and the next officer severely so. Half of those on deck were shot down, and in ten minutes the vessel was in the enemy's possession. A curious incident of the fight was, that young Lea's father was an officer on the Confederate side, and found his son in a dying condition after possession was taken.

     To complete the tragedy, Commander Renshaw, of the "Westfield," and the senior officer present was summoned to surrender under favorable conditions, which he might have done, as his vessel was unmanageable from the state of water at that time. This he refused, sending most of his crew on board an army transport which was afloat and remaining, with a few people, to destroy the "Westfield." Unfortunately the flames spread so fast that she blew up just as they got into the boat, and Renshaw, his first lieutenant, Zimmerman, Chief Engineer Green, and about a dozen men, lost their lives.

     Commander Wainwright had a son, also named Jonathan Mayhew, who was appointed a midshipman the year his father was killed, and who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1867. This young officer also lost his life by rifle-shot only three years after graduation. He had attained the rank of master, and was attached to the Pacific Squadron. In command of a boat expedition against the piratical steamer "Forward," in the lagoon at San Blas, he was shot in leading the boarders at her capture, and died the next day. The attack was successful, and the vessel was captured and burnt.

  Cunard ( talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The AfD unearthed those sources but failed to analyse them in depth. Now that I've read them, I suspect that what we've got is a good close of a defective AfD, which typically leads to "endorse but relist" here.— S Marshall T/ C 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I was aware of these sources when I made my comment here. They represent extremely detailed coverage of something beyond the scope of detailed coverage of a contemporary encycopedia . There are many books that cover everybody above a certain rank or level in something--for example, the many series of military regimental histories, or the many 19th century bibliographies including everyone above a certain arbitrary level which is lower than what we would normally include. If WP were to be a complete representation of everything that had ever been noticed in that way, it will expand way beyond what anyone in our century would reasonably expect of an encycopediaL we have barely scratched the surface with articles and references like this. Now, including these all is indeed a possible vision for WP,but I don't think it's the current one. WP is not the sum of all verifiable knowledge. Should it be the sum of everything really notable, plus whatever sub--notable material people of specific interest groups could find reasons to include? We've gone a long way down this line, in some fields. In this field, we have previously decided on a specific limitation, which limits our coverage to commanders of particularly significant military actions and officers above a certain rank. The military actions here appear routine, and the rank is below our standard. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I found these sources compelling because the time period covered. Historical figures particularity from before the turn of the 20th century generally have fewer sources. A regional hero or specialist in a more esoteric field will not receive the same coverage as they would today. These three sources gives the person significant coverage. Should they not bear more weight? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Why? He was a low-ranking officer who was killed without having accomplished much or even being decorated. We're routinely not accepting people awarded the Navy Cross, and yet we're supposed to welcome someone with no decorations at all? That just doesn't seem right. (I do seem to have erred, however, in that it wasn't an unnotable action.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:GNG only requires: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If we only have one source, we do not have "reliable sources". Here we have multiple sources. "commanders of particularly significant military actions and officers above a certain rank" are for people that do not meet GNG, but deserve an article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• endorse close but restore or relist I think the close of the discussion was reasonable, but that it's now pretty clear the topic meets the GNG. I can see that as being debatable so I've no objection to a relist. Hobit ( talk) 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus because I don't think there was a consensus. Anyway, there are now new sources. I think it's a pity that more was not made of the merge suggestion and I would have regarded a somewhat creative merge closure as also being within discretion. I think too much was made at AFD and here of inherent non-notability and the extraneous discussion here on both sides has been unhelpful. Thincat ( talk) 12:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Vu Digital ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Discussion with closing admin:

The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

Cunard ( talk) 00:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Recent DRVs about restoring article histories under redirects: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 21#Johnny Prill, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 8#List of wrestlers in WWE video games, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28#Annie Butler.

  See also the comments and links at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2015/January#History undeletion underneath redirect.

  Cunard ( talk) 00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse "delete" closing. For over a year now, Cunard has been advancing a novel interpretation of preserving "article history" by redirecting in lieu of deletion whenever possible. It is past time to recognize that this is a novel interpretation with no actual basis in the applicable policies and guidelines, including without limitation WP:Deletion policy and WP:Editing policy. Often cited as a basis for this interpretation are WP:ATD (in reality, part of WP:Deletion policy) and WP:PRESERVE (part of WP:Editing policy); neither WP:ATD nor WP:PRESERVE actually mention the words "article history," and it is reasonably clear these policies did not perceive the preservation of "article content" as the equivalent of "article history". This line of thought has now run its logical course, and Cunard and others are arguing for a non-existent policy. If Cunard wants to implement a new content preservation policy -- one that sets forth circumstances and guidance for the preservation of article history -- it is far past the time for proponents of such changes to seek the consensus of the wider community by means of an RfC, rather than trying to jaw-jaw DRV participants into creating such a de facto policy in contravention of the actual policies on point which do not even so much as mention "article history" in the context of preserving content. Do the right thing, start that RfC, and seek the consensus of the community. Until then, it's time to oppose this obvious over-reach when it is put forward as a rationale for overturning the clear consensus of AfD participants (as quite properly interpreted by closing administrators) by means of DRVs such as this one. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Cunard's been doing that for one heck of a lot more than a year, and redirecting in preference to deletion isn't a "novel interpretation", it's policy.

  I'm conflicted. On the one hand, Spartaz's point is easily understood ---- there really was a consensus to delete, and what's the purpose of deleting material if it's restored on request? That makes our procedures seem pretty pointless. But on the other hand, Cunard's point is also easily understood ---- he wants to improve C Spire Wireless, and I approve of that because that content desperately needs help. Why should Cunard have to go back to the drawing board when there's material in a deleted history he can use? To make him start from scratch is to prioritise procedures over content, and we have policies that say content takes priority over procedure.

  The AfD is no help. I can't disagree with Spartaz' close: there really was a consensus to delete there, although it wasn't a slam dunk. I can't see the deleted material but from reading the AfD, some experienced editors whose judgment I trust were unimpressed with it. I can see from the AfD that Cunard has already done the work of finding the sources and I wonder to what extent he needs that old deleted content to work from?

  All in all I want to look for a third way here and I wonder whether it would be possible to userfy or email the material to Cunard? That way Cunard could cut and paste material into the article with an edit summary that preserves attribution, but we're respecting the consensus to delete by not restoring the contested article to the mainspace.— S Marshall T/ C 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Here is the Google cache of the article. I would like to copy and paste several sentences in Vu Digital to C Spire Wireless. It would take fewer than five minutes, and I would do it now if I could be compliant with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright.

  I don't think a selective merge would be against the AfD's consensus. For example, DreamGuy wrote: "It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info." I can comply with his position by mentioning Vu Digital "more there" (cutting and pasting those sentences) but not merging "useless info" (the entire article).

  Cunard ( talk) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Apparently, you do not need anyone to provide a copy for you. There is no reason for this DRV. Nada. If you wanted to merge content from the deleted article, perhaps you should have participated in the AfD. Inventing an ex post facto rationale for overturning a properly decided AfD is sophistry. If you're genuinely concerned about our attribution and licensing policies, you may also paraphrase the desired content you believe is noteworthy. FYI, standard format citations are not generally considered creative content. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• The article history is needed to be compliant with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. The natural place for the article history of a merged article is at its original title. Moving it to userspace eventually will be non-compliant with WP:UP#COPIES.

  If you're genuinely concerned about our you may also paraphrase the desired content you believe is noteworthy. – there is no reason to force editors to waste time paraphrasing material that already has been written. This is a poor reason to support deletion of the article's history.

  If you wanted to merge content from the deleted article, perhaps you should have participated in the AfD. – I did participate in the AfD.

  Cunard ( talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but using your logic, every properly decided "delete" AfD could be overturned. Accept this was properly decided, and use the several available solutions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ S Marshall: If Cunard personally wants to improve the related article, then he -- like any other editor -- may request a copy of the deleted article from any administrator. That's the simplest route forward. We do not overturn AfD consensus "delete" decisions, properly interpreted by the closing administrator, in order to preserve article history that someone may use in the future. Delete means "delete," not "delete, but we really know delete means redirect to preserve the history of a non-notable subject". And, yes, the interpretation of WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy to overturn properly decided AfD "delete" outcomes is novel. Neither of those policies even so much as mentions "article history" in the context of preserving content. If that's the interpretation you desire, then prepare your RfC for community approval. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm surprised and rather amused to see someone who's new here lecture me, Smokeyjoe and Cunard on what decisions DRV does and does not make. Because you are new, it's understandable that you're not aware of the occasions on which we have restored article histories to preserve attribution. It is in fact a relatively common outcome. We do not need an RFC to know that we have to observe the terms of use that are linked from the bottom of every page.— S Marshall T/ C 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• "I'm surprised and rather amused to see someone who's new here lecture me." I could respond in a similarly ad hominem manner, S Marshall, but instead I will point out that capturing a review panel with four or five reliable !votes and advocating outcomes that are not supported by a literal reading of existing policies and guidelines is nothing to lord over perceived "newbies." It's pretty clear based on comments in this and other recent DRVs involving the restoration of article history under redirects that you would be better informed and Wikipedia better served by reviewing the applicable policies:

1. WP:Editing policy (with special attention to the fact "article history" is not mentioned in the context of "preserving content");
2. WP:Deletion policy (ditto);
3. WP:Deletion review (with particular attention to the scope of DRV review);
4. WP:Protection policy (no basis for indefinite full protection of redirects); and
5. WP:Copying within Wikipedia (proper paraphrasing of existing Wikipedia content does not require attribution).

Likewise, I am "surprised," but I am not at all "amused" by the misrepresentations of these fundamental policies in these discussions. I suggest that you save your condescension and start to review the weaknesses in the "save the article history arguments" presented. Apparently your assumptions (and those of other participants) have gone unchallenged by anyone who has actually read the applicable policies. As for being a newbie, I've been participating in AfDs and TfDs for six years, as well as copyright and attribution discussion, and I recognize when people have not read the actual policies they cite for support. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

A true lawyer! Do delete history because it is not mentioned in WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion review. Don't do any alternatives because they are not mentioned in WP:Protection policy. You do see your flawed logic ... right? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

There is no flawed logic, Richard, and your taunts are not becoming to a 56-year-old adult. "Delete and redirect" has been a perfectly valid !vote and AfD outcome for all of my six and a half years editing Wikipedia. The place to argue for the alternatives you seek was in the AfD; you don't get to overturn a valid AfD consensus because you don't like it. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but undelete history to allow a selective merge, protect the title to enforce the decision to delete. The undeletion of the history is good practice for proper WP:Copyright compliance. Wikipedia internally should definitely err on the side of overcompliance if it wants any credibility in asking downstream users to respect its copyrights. The AfD was found to have a consensus for deletion, as a matter of Wikipedia-notability, but there was inadequate consideration of reuse of some sourced material elsewhere. Given that Cunard has read the deleted article, he is influenced by it, and so its authors require attribution should cunard add anything from it to another article. Dirtlawyer1's suggestion of obtaining a copy of the deleted article and proceeding without ongoing attribution violates WP:Copyrights, both the spirit and the letter. While attribution workarounds are possible, such as a null edit pointing to a talk page section naming the authors or reused deleted content, it is not reasonable to expect downstream users to honour that, downstream users will reasonably rely on the author list provided by the "Download as PDF" tool. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ SmokeyJoe: Please review the circumstances under which indefinite full page protection is available per WP:FPP. My reading of our page protection policy is that full page protection is not available for redirects, let alone indefinite full page protection. "Delete" means "delete," not "selective merge, with a redirect and restoration of article history under the redirect". It is axiomatic that every merge is a selective merge, and a "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome. It is not DRV's remit to overturn a properly decided consensus outcome; that's no different than an administrator "super vote" disregarding the consensus in closing the AfD. In the absence of an AfD consensus "merge" closing, the same net result may be achieved by obtaining a copy (or a copy of selected sections of the deleted article) and re-writing or paraphrasing any substantive content to be included in the target article. Standard format citations are generally not considered creative content and may be recycled without change. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• With the decreasing number of active editors, I suspect that administrative controls, such as page protection on redirects that are the made as the result of a formal consensus discussion, will need to become routine. WP:FPP will need updating. Old policy need not be a future straightjacket. I submit that a consensus found at AfD, or DRV, or in any formal well-participated discussion, need not feel bound by the wording of WP:FPP where the intention of WP:FPP was to discourage pre-emptive unilateral protection. As the consensus was that the article should not exist, and if it is felt that the article should never exist, then it is appropriate to protect the title.

You write: "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome.

I don't see that. Can you check again? I see no opposition to the merge suggestion. Maybe DreamGuys "A merge would have a lot of useless info", but I don't agree that there was a rejection of merge. The Delete !voters seemed to be looking at a keep/delete dichotomy.

At DRV, we may consider that a certain fine question was not well considered. We could send it back for discussion, but if fine question is trivial DRV participants may address it directly. Further, the usual limits to freedom of outcome opined here can be considerably broadened, noting a long history and heightened friction between Cunard and Spartaz. I note that this friction is plain to see, without suggesting myself that either is at fault. I doubt that they would drink together in the real world.

It is true that the references are not creative content, and Cunard may take the references and re-create content. It may be erring on the side of compliance to give attribution for content in the article that may be preserved through Cunard's reworking, but I believe that Wikipedia should go to lengths to demonstrate excellent attention to copyright compliance. I also note that there is no harm in keeping material in the history, if we can assume that it will stay there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: FYI, I have been quite active in dealing with copyright material and enforcing the Wikipedia attribution guidelines for article-to-article copying of text within Wikipedia. Before you comment further, I strongly urge you to read WP:Copying within Wikipedia, which governs copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, and when attribution is required either in the article edit history or the article talk page. WP:COPYRIGHTS actually has little to say about copy-paste from one article to another.

I would also suggest that you re-read the DRV instructions on the WP:DRV page, your comments above suggest a great deal more latitude in what DRV should address than what you will find on that page. In particular, I suggest you take note of "Deletion Review should not be used . . . to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests)." In short, DRV is the wrong forum for Cunard's request, and this DRV discussion is an obvious attempt to circumvent the foregoing guideline. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• If it is OK to reuse deleted content in another article, then undelete, keep that content available behind the redirect. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• But why, Joe? The simplest, most time efficient solution is for Cunard to copy the references and the two or three sentences of substantive content he wishes to incorporate into the related article, and then re-write the two or three sentences he wishes to transfer. Easy-peasy, simple as pie. No redirect needed, no invalid full page protection for the redirect, no copyright problem, no Wikipedia attribution required, no overturning a perfectly valid consensus AfD close, and no more precedents for a very sketchy interpretation of WP:PRESERVE. One editor (Cunard) can implement everything required -- no DRV, no administrator to undelete, restore and page protect -- and it could have been done in less time than it took to file this DRV. Honestly, common sense has failed Cunard, here, because he is pursuing a completely unnecessary WP:POINT when the easiest, most time-efficient solution is completely within his own control. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• De minimis non curat lex -- "the law does not concern itself with trifles", and neither should DRV. As noted above, Cunard has it within his own power to accomplish his stated purpose without the necessity of this DRV or the assistance of any other editor. Why are we here? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Why have you wandered in here attempting to wikilawyer? I am not persuaded.

There was a consensus that there should not be a standalone article, but the discussion did not adequately consider redirection vs deletion. A case here is made for redirection, and also that the deleted material is suitable for inclusion elsewhere. If there is no compelling reason for deletion of the material, then undeletion and conversion to redirect is appropriate.

While you may be correct that Cunard has gone to some length to make a point when he could have achieve a similar outcome another way, it does not change the fact that his point is correct.

Either restore the history and redirect or relist for consideration of whether some material is suitable for inclusion in other articles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Several of us are attempting to "wikilawyer" a non-existent policy into existence, but I am not among them, Joe. And you failed to answer my simple question, to wit:

Why did Cunard need to file this DRV when he could have simply copied the references and rephrased the two or three sentences of content he wants to transfer to the related article?

Cunard could have accomplished his stated purpose in less time than it took to file this DRV, and you know it. There is absolutely no valid reason to preserve the article history of the deleted article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You are playing with words. "need" is an extreme word. None of us "need" do anything. Also, it is highly tangential. He has done it, and he is right. Perhaps he is trying to make a point to steer the project into more ideal practices, which definitely include only deleting content when there is good reason to do so. There was no good reason in this case. The request to undelete is reasonable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation, Sources provided show notability have been established and a AfD may be required. I for one also find it easier to work and improve articles with a userfied version intact. To denied Cunard a userfied version is unbecoming. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What? I haven't refused to userfy this. Cunard wants the article restored in mainspace - please check your facts before making unfounded accusations.. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I believed Cunard wanted to use to material in its history to do a selective merge a userfication may have prevented this discussion. Based on your talk page, I was under the impression this request was denied. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Valoem ( talk · contribs), I want the material restored under the redirect. I do not want a userfication for reasons like WP:UP#COPIES explained here. Cunard ( talk) 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

My mistake, neither request should be denied. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore history to allow merging and preserving copyright we must legally attribute material to the authors if some material is going to be merged. There is never a good reason to delete a history when converting into a redirect unless it is a copyright violation or slanderous in a BLP. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unless of course the consensus of the discussion is to delete. Ignoring that would be the real supervote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Huh? This is a post-facto restoration, I have not mentioned "supervote". -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Richard, please review WP:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular the following:

"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia), requires attribution.

In this case, the need for a restoration of article history for attribution purposes as a justification for restoring the article edit history is a massive red herring. For the transfer of two or three sentences of substantive content, re-writing the transferred content in a manner sufficient to avoid close-paraphrasing completely obviates the need for attribution (see above quote and link). Clearly, Cunard is a capable writer, and fully able to rephrase two or three sentences in his own words. Once again, we are trying to justify overturning a clear and proper AfD consensus decision for reasons that are not even required under the policies cited. Before you quote policy to others, it would behoove you to read and understand those policies in some detail. Paraphrasing the limited content to be transferred is the far simpler solution, and does not require overturning a proper AfD consensus, the unnecessary restoration of article history, fully protecting a redirect on questionable grounds, or a sketchy interpretation of policy that requires the preservation of article history under all conceivable circumstances. Usually, the simplest solution is the best one. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, do not restore- Consensus to delete was clear. Generally, a consensus-based close should be overturned only if the closer has made a mistake in judging it, or the situation changes dramatically afterward. That's not the case here. I suggest that, instead of starting a DRV, it would have been easier for Cunard to just take the references (either from the cached copy, or by asking an admin to email them) and write the content in his own words. AfD result upheld, content written, copyright requirements adhered to. Everyone should be happy. Reyk _YO! 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• endorse, restore, redirect and protect. It achieves the same outcome as deletion but keeps us meeting our license. Alternatively, if desired, I believe it is considered acceptable to use deleted material as long as you cite everyone in the edit history that contributed to the article. I'd like a second opinion on that, but I believe that also meets the letter (and probably most of the intent) of the CC BY-SA License. Disagree with Reyk here: asking someone else to rewrite everything (even just a few sentences) for sake of policy is silly. Though of Reyk wants do do the rewrite (or anyone else) that's fine too. Dirtlawyer1 has certainly spent way (way) more time writing things here than doing that would take... Hobit ( talk) 18:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hobit, it's not my obligation to re-write two or three sentences of text for a clearly capable writer. My objection here is that we are using these trivial needs for the transfer of a small amount of content into a reason for overturning a perfectly valid AfD close when a much simpler solution is readily available, and we are inventing a non-existent policy (preserve article history whenever possible is not the same as preserve article content when reasonably possible), as well as ignoring those policies that do exist -- i.e., there is no valid justification for preemptive, indefinite full page protection under WP:FPP, nor is there any real impediment to paraphrasing two or three sentences of content to be added to the related article per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. This is simply an excuse to try to further establish a precedent in favor of a new "policy" that has no explicit textual basis in existing policy, and it should be opposed on principle for that reason alone. As I said above, the simplest resolution to the "problem" presented by the OP is not the one requested. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's not his job either. The text is there and if we have to have it undeleted to use it, I don't see the problem. I'm open to other solutions, but as a general rule, my feeling is that anyone who shouts "It's easy, just do it" should be prepared to either do it or should shut up. You do make a good point about our protection policies. But I think my alternative solution fixes everything. Your thoughts on that? Hobit ( talk) 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• "It's not his job either." Uh, Cunard has premised this entire DRV on his desire to move a small amount of content from the deleted article to the related article ("a selective merge" in his words). The content was deleted per a perfectly valid consensus AfD closing. He now seeks to unwind that 7–3 "delete" vs. "keep" consensus closing because he did achieve his desired "keep" outcome in the AfD, saying that he wants to "preserve content" by transferring some verbatim content from the deleted article to the related article. He has a perfectly viable alternative per WP:Copying within Wikipedia: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." But rewriting the content in his own words is not good enough for him, he want to transfer verbatim content from a deleted article whose subject was determined to be non-notable by a 7–3 !vote in which he participated. So, yeah . . . I'm a little taken aback by your "It's not his job either" response because it's such boldly stated non sequitur. He has made it his job by demanding a non-consensus outcome and the privilege to use that content -- is someone else going to transfer that content he has demanded be made available through a restored edit history or is someone else obligated to do that for him as their "job"? If he could just as easily paraphrase the two or three sentences of content per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, why exactly are we having this DRV? This DRV appears to be a WP:POINTY exercise. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps Cunard does not wish to rewrite in his own words. Perhaps the original version was well written. Erring on the side of providing attribution is a good thing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• "Erring on the side of providing attribution is a good thing." Generally, I would agree with that statement, however, WP:Copying within Wikipedia makes a specific exception: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." That said, we do not overturn consensus because "Cunard does not wish to rewrite in his own words. Perhaps the original version was well written." Neither of those is a valid DRV rationale for overturning a properly decided AfD consensus, and I'm sorry, Joe, but repeating it doesn't make it any more valid. The "overturn" participants in this discussion are struggling to state a coherent reason for overturning a proper consensus "delete" closing. It may not be the way either of us would have voted had we participated, but absent clear error we don't get to substitute our !votes for those of the participants. "Delete" means "delete," not "delete the article, add a redirect and restore the article history of an article that was determined to non-notable by a perfectly valid consensus". Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• The AfD did not consider the merits of redirecting. Assuming that the title is now to be redirected (has that case been made?), then redirection with history intact should be the default position and undeleting the history should not be this hard.

Cunard could and should add the material now to the target, create the redirect, and see if the material in the target sticks and if the redirect is justified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I am following the discussion, I do believe there are sources that may allow a recreation at some point in the future. I understand that the opener's request it is allow a redirect to be retained so he can use the material for a merge to the main article. I find this to be a more than reasonable request, based on the discussion there does not appears to be violating material in the history of the article. It could be viewed an avoidable complexity. Such requests should be granted without such discussions unless a particular reason is noted. To allow an editor to use information to expand the encyclopedia is its appropriate place is the best way to grow Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE exists for this reason. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Guide to deletion - Please note that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard of clearly does not know the history of established AfD procedures as well as they think. Moreover, Curnard and one or more other editors who have suggested that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome are flat-out wrong. I hope this removes all doubt as to what is actually permissible as an AfD !vote or consensus outcome. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 06:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

::Thats understandable, a temporary userfication is a good alternative, I believe the editor would like to use content in its history to do a selective merge to the parent article. Is there a policy against that? Valoem ^{talk contrib}

Deleted content cannot be transferred to another article without attribution. The simple solution is to rewrite any copy-paste text in a manner sufficient to avoid a close paraphrase. This simple and obvious solution has been rejected by Cunard and the other editors who want the article history restored regardless based on a non-existent policy of preserving article history whenever possible. The real policy is to preserve article content by fixing an article or merging it to another when reasonably possible. Please note, however, that (a) preserving content and preserving article history are not the same things, and (b) the Wikipedia Guide to Deletion explicitly permits "delete and redirect" AfD !votes and consensus outcomes. This whole DRV (and several that preceded it) are based on a succession of misreadings and misunderstandings of well-established AfD procedures. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 06:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• That is indeed the one of the simpler solutions under discussion. The simplest solution that's been raised is for Spartaz to userfy or email a copy of the deleted content to Cunard; for Cunard to copy/paste whatever he likes into the article; and for the edit summary he uses to paste the material include a list of the contributors.— S Marshall T/ C 08:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Neither are the best solution. The minimal requirement is that a downstream user can access the list of authors. The best solution is that the source website, wikipedia.org, allows the examination of the precise contribution. Trying to maintain this will help keep this website more respected than any mirror or reuse. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, redirect and undelete history. It is a good and well-established practice to keep the history under a redirect unless there has been abusive content (copyright infringement, attack). Lack of notability is a particularly strong reason for keeping the history so that material can later be included in a broader topic or recreated if notability is later established. Even if the history is not necessary in specific instance, it is better to retain it than argue about it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanne Verbruggen is a recent commendable example. Is there anything in the history being discussed here that ought to remain hidden? Protect the redirect if there is abuse. Thincat ( talk) 10:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Thincat: Please point to the provision of WP:Protection policy that permits preemptive full page protection for redirects. We some to have created one policy out of thin air, while ignoring several that do exist in this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Well protection isn't my area of interest or expertise and I don't mind much whether any redirect is protected now, or in future, or not at all. I'm entirely happy to leave all that to others. Anyway, I'm not sure why you are asking me to point to where preemptive protection of redirects is permitted when I wasn't suggesting preemptive protection. When I glanced just now at the protection policy page I just couldn't face reading it! Over the years I have become familiar with many aspects of deletion policy and notability guidance but even there I generally look again to check up before giving an opinion here. Thincat ( talk) 19:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Full protection of redirects after a deletion discussion is sometimes done for the same reason that full protection against re-creation is sometimes done: because some editors are unwilling to live with the consensus and this stops them from unilaterally re-creating the material. It's not really discussed in detail at WP:SALT but there is a brief discussion at the top of Category:Protected redirects. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and reuse the already perfected content. If we are counting AfD votes, the votes from earlier nominations should be factored into the total. 1st nomination, 3 keep to 1 delete, 2nd nomination, 3 keep to 5 delete, In effect, the overall vote is 6 to 6, far from consensus. Additionally, I see WP:INHERIT bandied around a lot for Corp articles, I can't think of any individual or entity that is notable for their mere existence, it is their works or products that make them notable. In this case, we cannot just consider the corporation, there is also the product which may be notable and often brands are also notable. Finally, I've been kicking around the idea of hosting my own Wiki, recovering what I feel is valuable content that gets deleted on a daily basis. As such, without a redirect and edit history (blank article, install redirect), how does the external Wiki comply with the Foundation's policy for attribution? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 ^Talk 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Actually, the second AfD was 6–3 delete vs. keep (we count the nominator as a delete !vote), and, no, we do not combine the !votes from multiple AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Interesting, AfDs can be unlimited, with very little nominating supporting logic ("Seems like advertising to me"), while "keep" is sudden death, and the original author's vote is often discounted. How many times can the AfD be brought to DRV? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 ^Talk 23:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ 009o9: Per WP:Deletion policy, "As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." There is a limit of implied reasonableness on the frequency of AfDs regarding the same article. If an article is kept by consensus at AfD, it should not be submitted to AfD again (absent a DRV challenging the outcome) for a substantial time afterward. For an AfD that results in a "no consensus" outcome, there is no such implied limitation on when it may be resubmitted, although resubmitting a new AfD for a well-attended AfD that resulted in no consensus with good argument may not be particularly well received, either, and closed as tendentious. DRVs may be resubmitted upon the discovery of substantial new reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject; the article may also be resubmitted if it has been userfied and substantially re-written to demonstrate the subject's notability or correction of other problems that led to its deletion. Consensus can change, and no consensus can be said to last indefinitely per WP:CCC. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

009o9, you should use Special:Export with appropriate settings to download the full page history. The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Flatscan ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, do not restore. The deletion discussion not only had a clear consensus that the article should be deleted, but also that a major reason for the deletion was that the sources from the article were press releases and local news stories of too low quality to use. So undeleting the same material in order to use the same references to describe the same subject in a different article seems clearly against consensus to me. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• That is a compelling argument against including the same material in the redirect target, and undermines the merits of the request for undeletion. Is it true that the material sought to be reused was not sourced to quality material from quality sources? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I made that remark having only read through the AfD itself, where I saw what appeared to be a consensus that the sources were low quality, but your question caused me to look at them myself. The deleted version of the article had six footnotes. Two are press-release-aggregators (Business Wire and PRNewswire). Two of them are local news sources (Mississippi Business Journal and The Clarion-Ledger). One appears to be a non-notable blog (newswatchblog.com). But the remaining source, in TechCrunch, might be sufficiently reliable and independent to use as a source. Here is the link: [1]. I doubt that it would require undeletion to re-use that source, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Not in the least. The only thing cited to that source, which is the closest to usable, was a quote from the company's vice-president. The overwhelming majority of the article that isn't quotes from the company's mouthpieces are sourced to such gems as this; even the title of that press release is spam. There is no possible way a merge of this material would be of any use to anybody except as a thinly-veiled excuse to undelete this article for the sake of undeleting it. — Cryptic 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I plan to copy and paste several sentences from the deleted article to C Spire Wireless. I will source the material from TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, Broadcasting & Cable, and The Clarion-Ledger, which all pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I will not merge any material sourced only to press releases or sources that fail Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There was no consensus in the AfD that Vu Digital should be covered nowhere.

  On the contrary, an editor supporting deletion wrote: "It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info." I will comply with "mention[ing]" Vu Digital "more there" by only using material sourced to reliable sources and not merging "useless info" sourced only to press releases or unreliable sources.

  Cunard ( talk) 04:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. For all the wikilawyering above, this is really very simple. The community was asked to decide what to do with this article. They said (by a 2:1 margin), to delete it. Now, Cunard is asking, Ignore what they said, do what I want instead. Sparatz is right, to go along with this request would be to ignore the consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm writing this as a separate comment, to make sure it doesn't get conflated with my unequivocal endorsement above. There is a bit of a technical problem here. There's really two different flavors of delete. One is, This material violates core policy by its very existence and must be expunged. That's the case with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:OFFICE, WP:OUT, etc. The other is, This material doesn't meet our editorial standards for inclusion as an article. For case 2 AfDs that get closed as merge or redirect, it's a no brainer to preserve the history under the redirect. For case 1, it's a no brainer to delete the history (in exceptional cases, even from the view of admins via WP:Oversight). The problem that we're discussing here is the (not terribly uncommon) case of an article being deleted for WP:N reasons without there being anyplace to redirect the title. The wiki software has no mechanism for this which doesn't involve hiding the history. We've got preserve the history under a redirect, but we don't have preserve the history with no visible title. Perhaps we should. We could implement that today, with no changes to the software, by creating a Deleted: namespace. Then, a case 2 deletion could be implemented as a rename of Foo to Deleted:Foo. I think this would result in exactly what we need. The article would be out of mainspace. It wouldn't show up in our search index (and it would be easy to adjust our robots.txt file to exclude it from the web crawlers so it wouldn't show up in google, bing, yahoo, etc). Wikilinks to it under the old title would now become redlinks (and we would have a policy which says articles in mainspace may never link to deleted space). But, the full edit history would still be there, so people could mine the old text for whatever purpose and attribution would be preserved. And, in AfD, people would have to be clear which flavor of delete they are arguing for. But, let me re-emphasize, I'm talking here about future directions. For this DRV, my !vote to endorse, above, is in full force. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Interesting proposal, Roy. Probably deserves to be explored at length outside of this DRV. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore and merge if it is actually beneficial as a merge can be made even if the article will still be deleted but keep the redirect for history purposes. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• 'Suggestions There should be some principle by which we decide. I suggest these, which are the basis for what I say at one of these discussions:

1. If the material will eventually make an article, but cannot practically be immediately improved, and is not actually harmful in some manner , such as being promotional, it's appropriate to userify--though I would suggest always doing this into draft space, to encourage others to work on it also & make it visible to the usual draft space processes. Make a redirect in addition, if there's an appropriate target; if necessary , protect it. . Do not keep the material in mainspace in the article history behind the redirect, because changing a redirect back to an article does not go though the New Pages process, and will thus not be noticed by the usual patrolling. The article history will still be therein the draft space, which will preserve attribution if it should become an article .
2. If the subject might make an article, but the material at present is useless, or harmful in some manner, such as being promotional, delete, and let any good faith editor have a copy of the text to use as assistance for rewriting an article. Make a redirect if there's a good target. If necessary, protect it. Protection will normally force the new article to be made in draft space.
3. If the subject is outrageous promotional, or written in violation of our terms of use, do not make a redirect, and protect the article title. If necessary, protect draft space also, for 6 months to a year. The new article should not be made immediately, to prevent the person improperly trying to take advantage of WP from benefiting by having an article. It is our only available sanction against violation of the tou, and individual editors will harm WP if they in any way encourage or reward such violations.

Now, we have no specific policy requiring the third point, but in practice we often do something of the sort. I have the highest regard for Cunard, but the practice by which he contributes to the work of promotional editors is harming WP, and we ought to establish a consensus to not allow it. (This is a disagreement, and should not be misinterpreted as as a personal quarrel.) Whether we have an article or not on a specific subject is almost always much less important than doing whatever is in our power to prevent WP from becoming a place for advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I missed the window to view the google cache. DGG, are you saying that Cunard is seeking to provide attribution, perhaps "courtesy attribution", to an editor whose clear intention in contributing to the deleted article was promotion? If yes, I would agree, attribution should be denied. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe ( talk · contribs), you can see the article in the Bing Cache, which you can view by clicking the downward arrow on the "/info/en/?search=Vu_Digital" line and then clicking "Cached page". The article is written neutrally and has no promotional material. Attribution should not be denied to the editors who wrote that neutral content. Cunard ( talk) 01:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

That's seriously your idea of neutral? — Cryptic 02:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I see why it was deleted. It is wholly promotional. But not egregiously so, not so badly that I would agree to calling the authors spam vandals who should be banned and their memory suppressed. I don't see a problem with undeleting the history, as long as it is understood that the past content was promotion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Cryptic and SmokeyJoe, yes, the article is written neutrally. The sentences sourced from the company's PRNewswire post are a mistaken addition from a new editor or IP editor in May 2015 and should not be held against the article's creator who wrote the article in 2013 or earlier based on the references' accessdates.

This has happened recently to one of the articles I wrote. Some very promotional wording had stayed in the article for several years before I noticed it a few days ago and reverted it. Promotional material later added to articles should not reflect poorly on the articles' creators who may no longer be around to remove it. Cunard ( talk) 02:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Good grief. Is this what Cunard is fighting so damn hard to "preserve" -- a WP:PROMOTION article that violates WP:What Wikipedia is not? Per WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion no. 14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," i.e., WP:What Wikipedia is not, including "Advertising, marketing or public relations," is subject to deletion at AfD. Enough. This should be embarrassing to everyone involved. The perfectly viable alternative is to take the references (i.e. non-creative content that does not require attribution), write a sentence or two about Vu Digital for the related article of the parent company -- minus the grotesquely promotional quotes from company insiders -- and call it a day. We should not be turning our policies and guidelines inside out and upside down over the "preservation" of so-called "content" that violates Wikipedia policy. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• (ec) I would disagree that it was written neutrally. I would call it a tempered press release. The lack of critical commentary is the problem. A wholly owned subsidiary of a private company employing 1-10 people needs clearly independent commentary avoid being labelled "promotion". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Damn right. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• There was "clearly independent commentary". The article cited both independent sources like TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, and The Clarion-Ledger that pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and non-independent sources like a PRNewswire post. Material cited to the former is clearly usable, while material cited to the latter is clearly unusable. Cunard ( talk) 03:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I copied three acceptable sources mentioned by Cunard from the Bing cache: [2], [3], [4]. Flatscan ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore and merge:

• The argument that the history must be preserved in order to maintain copyright holds water for me.
• Cunard has specifically proposed to preserve only the content from the article that is sourced from reliable independent sources, such as TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, and The Clarion-Ledger. Is anyone challenging the reliability or independent nature of these sources?
• Much of the opposition to this copyright chain issue in this discussion seems to be supported by an anti-promotional bias. We need to separate the bias against the promotional tone of the article from the merits of preserving the content that is based on reliable independent sources.
• This was certainly not a 'slam dunk delete' as those who supported the Delete side based their arguments on (a) the presence of PR sources which could easily have been removed from the article without deleting it, and (b) there was never any argument laid out for why local and regional media sources were not valid. -- Sbwoodside ( talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I asked AfD "delete" participant Joseph2302 whether he supported my proposal here at DRV to merge only material sourced from reliable independent sources like TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, and The Clarion-Ledger. He wrote: "I cannot see the page, but from my previous comments, it seems like it was a spampage with a few okay sources. If you just use reliable sources, then I don't have an issue."

  The AfD had nine participants. On the "delete" side, SwisterTwister and Joseph2302 are okay with a merge using only reliable sources. On the "keep" side, 009o9, Sbwoodside, and I are also okay with a merge using only reliable sources. AfD "delete" participant DGG has written a nuanced comment above.

  I think that since at least five out of the nine AfD participants are fine with a merge using only reliable sources, it would not be against AfD participants' wishes to restore the history under the redirect to facilitate a merge to C Spire Wireless.

  Cunard ( talk) 05:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as the clear consensus of the AfD. Unless someone objects or beats me to it, I will write a few sentences in C Spire Wireless#History from the four acceptable sources without using text from the deleted article. I looked at the Bing cache version to copy its three sources, but I didn't actually read it. Flatscan ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Although we have disagreed on some occasions, I consider you to be Wikipedia's resident copyright sage and am glad to see you return to editing. Thank you for clearing up questions and misconceptions about copyright here and at another DRV. I appreciate your valuable insight.

  Thank you for offering to expand C Spire Wireless#History with information about Vu Digital. A majority of the AfD participants have said they are fine with restoring the article's history under the redirect to facilitate a merge. Since the article's history contains useful content for a merge and restoring it would not be against their wishes, I continue to believe the article's history should be restored. I view the merge of reliably sourced material from Vu Digital as complementary to your expansion, both of which will significantly improve the C Spire Wireless article. Cunard ( talk) 07:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply