-
World Head of Family Sokeship Council (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
Apparently the article's title has been salted, so I've been advised to bring the discussion here.
009o9 (
talk) 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC) There is further guidance (somewhat hard to find) on martial arts article topics here:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability#Schools and organisations
009o9 (
talk)
23:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The original article (can be seen in the Draft article history) was horribly referenced (primary only), overtly promotional to the point of disingenuous, and was quite rightly deleted via AfD The title was eventually salted because of constant reposting with no attempt to address the issues. I will add that the article had been declined in AfC process multiple times before copy pasted into main space. So with respect to deletion review - the original deletion was correct.
- That said this new version is hugely different, and although IMHO some of the issues critically still remain, this is not a question for DRV. I suggest that the Draft article go through AfC. The de-salting can be taken care of at the point where it passes that process. Once passed it would not be deleted via G4 because it is substantially different. I suspect there might be an AfD soon after but that could happen no matter which route is taken. I added a couple of comments on the Draft talk page concerning the article itself.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- We are already in the latter stages of AfC, submitted
25 January, the article sat without comment for 20 days.
User:MSGJ recommended bringing this to DRV, stating in the AfC discussion on the talk page, "Ultimately I have no problem in moving this draft over, if others are in agreement."
009o9 (
talk)
18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore without prejudice to a new AfD. DRV really isn't the place for this and AfC isn't required. Draft at least has a reasonable claim to meeting
WP:N but no objection to someone taking this to AfD if they wish.
Hobit (
talk)
23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Apparently,
User:MSGJ is correct about DRV being the proper venue for discussions of this type, see:
Wikipedia:Protected titles/Historical.
009o9 (
talk)
03:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore and allow nomination at AfD. The AfD discussion was not so impressive. I assume more sources have been found. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I was the salting admin and I recommended that this go through DRV, given my remarks
here. FWIW, I do support restore and send back to AfD, but I wanted to make sure that this go through the proper channels to give it a good chance at survival. This wasn't the worst case of promotional/COI editing that we'd had here, but it was fairly persistent, to the point where the (now blocked) editor had repeatedly created various COI articles (
World heads of family sokeship council,
San Jitsu,
Frank E. Sanchez,
San jitsu,
World Head of Family Sokeship Council) to the point where salting and blocking became necessary. The edit will need some editing for sourcing, as it's fairly weak overall - a concern that was shared at the
martial arts WP talk page, where I asked for help with finding sourcing. Some of the sourcing is problematic as well, in the case of the article backing up details with places like the social media website Goodreads.
Tokyogirl79
(｡◕‿◕｡)
08:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- In light of this new information disclosed by
User:Tokyogirl79, I'd like to propose that
San Jitsu,
San jitsu,
Frank E. Sanchez also be unsalted. There is no reason to permanently punish these topics (both of which could be trademarks and might be notable), due to a misunderstanding with a newbie editor
WP:DNB. The now blocked original editor has no intention of ever editing the Wikipedia again.
- To a new editor, the new trend of disallowing stub articles and requiring excessive references in AfC declines is understandably frustrating when they can point to dozens of similar articles published on the Wikipedia. My client (the blocked user) has proposed two other articles which I have declined, neither of which can pass WP:N at this time, specifically
United States Isshinryu Karate Association and
Phil E. Little, neither of these topics appear to be blocked(?) There is currently no plans for a Frank E. Sanchez, nor San Jitsu articles and my involvement with the client appears to be winding down. In good conscious, we should clean up this mess while we are here.
009o9 (
talk)
15:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'd only recommend unsalting them if there are valid articles to place there and/or if they will become redirects to the main article. If this survives AfD in the mainspace, I'd support these being turned into redirects. This article here needs to prove itself first before unsalting the other articles becomes an option.
Tokyogirl79
(｡◕‿◕｡)
07:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Basically, take this in baby steps. The article has a problematic history and the first thing that you should do is make sure that the first article will survive in the mainspace before opening the floodgates. Just be cautious, take baby steps, and try to be strict with sourcing - being too lenient can sometimes backfire. The article will likely have a lot going against it and the best way to ensure that this doesn't get pegged as a continuation of the earlier issues with promotion is to be extremely careful. I know I come across as strict, but that's because it's just that easy for stuff to get deleted on Wikipedia if you're not careful. TBH, the Council sounds like it should pass notability guidelines but it needs very strong sourcing because articles that have been previously deleted at AfD or elsewhere and have a history of problematic, COI editing are usually far, far more difficult to justify on Wikipedia because the main reaction will be "if it's not over the moon notable, just leave it deleted".
Tokyogirl79
(｡◕‿◕｡)
10:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Like I said, the client has no desire to edit again and it is much more cost efficient to just pay me to keep him out of trouble. I certainly don't want my writing to appear promotional, but that is generally a function of the strictness in AfC these days, most of the decline verbiage is canned, so it is quite apparent that not much time is spent on some articles. Sometimes a lot gets thrown at an article, in the highest visibility, just to get the reviewer to consider WP:N. The Frank E. Sanchez topic might be a logical redirect to the WHFSC article, but the San Jitsu topic is not. My suggestion to unsalt both topics is so that some future editor (or uninvolved reviewer) does not spend a week in DRV, just to approve an AfC in the coming years.
009o9 (
talk)
12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'll make you a deal - when this moves to the mainspace I'll unsalt these and create redirects. (I say when, since this looks extremely likely to be approved and I'd actually be disappointed if it doesn't get approved.) If this survives AfD (assuming someone nominates it, which I'm not going to do) then these redirects can always be changed into articles at any point in time in the future.
Tokyogirl79
(｡◕‿◕｡)
12:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- No comment on the unsalting but as
009o9 mentioned that although Frank E. Sanchez could be considered a reasonable redirect to WHFSC, San Jitsu would not.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- My interest in unsalting is administrative in that we should clean up the entire misunderstanding while we are discussing it. An entirely different Frank E. Sanchez may become notable in the future (there already is a Frank Sanchez article) and San Jitsu might one day be the short title of a film or book. If the WHFSC article survives the process, a search for Frank E. Sanchez will produce a result to the WHFSC article with or without a redirect so I am indifferent about it.
Tokyogirl79 suggested that proposed redirects would be needed for her support in the unsalting. I'm just proposing we leave a clean slate for future editors (and reviewers) now that the tendentious newbie editor issue has been resolved.
009o9 (
talk)
14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Well... the problem with that is that these are such specific names that it's very unlikely that there will ever be anything under these titles that doesn't pertain to the Council's Sanchez and San Jitsu and the main (and almost sole) Google hits under either comes up with results that pertain to the Council. If someone is searching these phrases on Wikipedia, odds are high that they will be interested in reading about the Council. If/when someone or something else by these terms does gain enough notability to warrant an article, they can always build the article on those terms or request an unsalting. If/when the article is restored to the mainspace these terms would be best served as redirects since the Council would be the most obvious expectation in a search.
Tokyogirl79
(｡◕‿◕｡)
05:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Redirects are fine with me, as long as the next editor can accomplish their task without administrative assistance and/or unwarily writing an entire article that already has a prejudice that they have no knowledge of. If we decide to go that way, I'll add some verbiage to the lede mentioning Sanchez' style is San Jitsu, so the bluelinks are not confusing to the reader.
009o9 (
talk)
11:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore, and either fix or AfD The standard for AfC declines is whether the article is likely to survive in mainspace. This is variously interpreted as 51%, 60%, 66.66%, 70%. 80%--but of course this can not be stated as a definite figure, because of the variability in AfD discussions. In the past some people reviewing AfCs have declined acceptable articles in order to get them further improved. This is wrong, in my opinion , and I think the opinion of almost all the people working regularly there. In contrast, it is not necessarily wrong to decline an article which might just pass AfD but would very probably pass with feasible further improvement. Fortunately, no decline at AfC is final, for the article can be resubmitted, and most current reviewers are sensible.
- If I had reviewed the current draft I would not have accepted it. I would probably have given the reason as both notability and promotionalism: the list of "ambassadors" in the various countries is content which belongs on a web site, not a WP page, too many of the references are mere mentions of someone being a member, and too many of the sources for key points are local newspapers where the material was presumably added from a press release in connection with a local event--and I think some of the refs submitted above fall into the latter category, &I doubt it would pass AfD in its current state. But it is fixable, because the section mentioned can be removed, and the trivial refs removed, and there will probably be enough left.
- However, pointing to similar articles presently in WP does not mean much: Out of the 6 million articles we have, probably more than 100,000 (which is only 1.7% of the total) are ones accepted in prior years where the standard were lower, and would be deleted if brought to AfD now.-- and a good reason for gradually doing that is to avoid confusing people about our current standards.
DGG (
talk )
23:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
 Done DGG's proposed edits in strike-thru
Draft:World Head of Family Sokeship Council --
009o9 (
talk)
04:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
|