Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 February 5
2019 February 7 >

6 February 2019

  • Aprimo – Nothing happens. As far as I can tell, this is about whether to undelete some parts of the history of an article for ... unclear reasons? In any case, nobody seems to feel strongly about it, and many (like me) struggle to understand what the problem is. So, insofar as I am able to ascertain consensus, it is that any administrator who thinks that there is a benefit to Wikipedia to undelete parts of the history is free to do so (but this admin won't be me). Sandstein 08:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aprimo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The deletion of prior incarnation the page Aprimo on 05:01 01 February 2019 UTC may not have been compliant with CSD G6 there being (I suspect) history to the page. I suspect the page at that point was a redirect that had been converted from an underlying article. I understand he purpose of that deletion was so that replace with a draft incarnation going through AfC. This version warned If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move ...'. The the draft page at the time of the proposed article also indicated a merge may need to be considered. Additionally talk pages were not deleted/moved appropriately with their associated incarnations. These should have warned CSD G6 may be controversial. I have discussed with the deleting admin but have reached a good faith impasse on obtaining a copy of the deleted incarnation so at this point have chosen to ask for independent scrutiny. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Aprimo was a company that was independent and likely merited its own article, became part of Teradata for a number of years when it did not (and was I suspect properly was transformed to a redirect), and became an independent entity again and quite properly merited it's own article (subject to notability etc). The loss of the visibility of the pre-Teradata pages is to a degree unfortunate and the correct procedure in my opinion should probably have been to edit the redirect into an article. There is little question the current article content has now got to a fairly reasonable WP:NPOV, there being a COI aspect which is mostly irrelevant to DRV. The result of this review should not be simply to restore the deleted page replacing the current page. It may be to somehow perform a merge but that may now be worse than leaving as it. It is more to consider if CSD G6 and associated talk page handling was appropriately applied and documented and any lessons for the future. Please note I believe all involved have been acting in good faith. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm the onus of this problem so will reserve making a comment, except to express regret for any issues I created. (Also, in fairness, I'm not entirely certain I understand what's being proposed, so am probably not qualified to comment in any case.) I approved the article at AfC through process of G6 move of a redirect, failing to note that, in 2009, actual content apparently existed at the page for 58 minutes before the page was speedily deleted. I, again, apologize for my oversight. Chetsford ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Attempting to clarify ... the 2009 incarnation and its deleteion is not relevant. The concern is the redirect page deleted on 05:01 February 2019 had history ( I have indirect evidence this was likely) and was possibly not eligible for CSD G6. My understanding of CSD G6 is if you did not check that history (if it existed), nor checked talk page of the candidate draft article, nor organised/check for talk pages to be handled in parallel with the associated article page it is possible due diligence on the deletion of 05:01 February 2019 and associated clean up was not performed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The G6 deletion was incorrect, there being a major history, but I can't bring myself to care. The previous article, which somehow managed to survive for nearly seven years before being redirected in March 2017, was vapid marketingspeak with a presumeably-exhaustive list of industry awards to break up the monotony, created by a painfully-obvious PR agent (it even says so in their username!) and sourced entirely to referencebombed routine and trivial coverage. No company was so "meriting" of an article that we should've put up with one that bad for so long. We're not going to gain anything by restoring the history, except maybe ammunition for a future AFD. In any event, the three revisions in August 2009 are copyvios and must not be restored; the 14 revisions in September 2018 and later interleave with the current history, never had any content to speak of, and shouldn't be histmerged either. — Cryptic 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - What is the purpose to this Deletion Review? Will it have any effect on whether the article is kept, or does it only have to do with how to preserve the history, or whether to identify lessons learned about drafts created by paid editors, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have raised the DRV because I was concerned the way the draft was introduced to mainspace was incorrect. Because there appears to be an existing redirect with significant history CSD G6 should not have been used to call for and effect the deletion, as seems to be confirmed by Cryptic; and but that rather a copy and paste move should have been executed to preserve edit history. Any lesson learned may be in the situation where a draft article is used to wipe a previous article possibly covered by a redirect, and possibly to remin that talk pages should be kept in sync. In terms of this DRV the result from this DRV may be that a histmerge should still be performed, or that it should have been performed but the benefit is not worth the work, or that the histmerge should not have been performed. COI/non-neutral editing is not technically relevant for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving procedures. It could be argued WP:G11 is relevant from COI/neutrality however criteria then says it alternative text is available (and it was), the text should be preferably be replaced rather than the article deleted. If anyone feels, or it may be the the outcome of DRV to suggest, the article be tested at WP:AFD though my feeling is the (current) article would survive such a process generally due to independent commentaries on the Teradata acquisition and sale price difference. Because I have become minded a histmerge is not a likely and because Cryptic has indicated Aprimo has been apparently subject to promotion by Aprimo Public Relations in the past I have referenced it from the article talk page ... however that is not relevant to the discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This discussion, ongoing for a week or more in various locations, reminds me of something Charles Matthews said years ago (he's one of the co-authors of How Wikipedia Works):
"We have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of discussion call them Wonkish and Arbish.
"In Wonkish, discretion stands for certain vague and disreputable areas of policy where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention and the application to the mission of writing an encyclopedia."
I postulate that the original poster here has been speaking in Wonkish, while most admins and other experienced editors addressing these questions have been speaking in Arbish. – Athaenara ✉ 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • A substandard article existed at Aprimo. The substandard article was converted to a redirect in March 2017. The redirect was deleted in February 2019 to make way for a move of Draft:Aprimo to Aprimo. Djm-leighpark wrote, "One issue that resulted from this is that the associated talk page was not deleted and has become associated with the current article, making references to the article before it was created."

    Cryptic noted that some of the revisions from the article interleave with the revisions from the September 2018 deleted version of the article. This means there are parallel versions. It would be inadvisable to do a history merge since interleaved revisions from both article versions would make the history difficult to read.

    To address Djm-leighpark's concerns about the missing history and to address the parallel versions concern, the deleted history (absent the three August 2009 revisions that are copyright violations) could be moved to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history. A link to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history could be added to Talk:Aprimo. See Talk:Fluffy bunny#Old article at this title, Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old history, and Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old talk page for one way this has been done.

    I cannot make a determination about whether the old content of Aprimo is worth retaining since I do not have access to the deleted content. Based on Cryptic's description of the content, it is likely that the old content of Aprimo is not that useful. But since Djm-leighpark ( talk · contribs), a good faith experienced editor, thinks there is value in retaining the deleted revisions, I recommend implementing the Talk:Aprimo/Old article history approach I suggested above.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I would like to commend Cunard of his analysis and am supportive of his suggestion. While the usefulness of the restore likely minimal the history gives some insight (albeit biased) into the not totally straightforward history of Aprimo, some insight into previous promotional editing and compfort of no copyvio's. That said I estimate the chance I will use that is possibly less than one percent. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification of my own position: any admin could do what's being asked here if they felt it should be done. I don't and won't, but if another admin does I won't consider it wheel-warring and won't kick up a fuss. – Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thankyou for the comments and clarification, but may I point out that for my understanding of the DRV procedure people should make the view of the DRV clear not through comments ... though these have been useful in helping clarifying the situation, but by indicating their position on the validity of the deletion under CSD G6 and what action should be taken per WP:Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review. As original poster I am supporting overturn, action implement restore to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history per WP:Requested moves/Closing a page => Procedure for redirects with major histories (3) as suggested by a Cunard. (As original poster I cannot cannot !Vote.). Other options I see include oppose, action take no action .. I would read this as Cryptic's position above. Or another option would be to endorse the actions taken in terms of CSD G6 and that it was followed correctly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_February_6&oldid=1039506768"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 February 5
2019 February 7 >

6 February 2019

  • Aprimo – Nothing happens. As far as I can tell, this is about whether to undelete some parts of the history of an article for ... unclear reasons? In any case, nobody seems to feel strongly about it, and many (like me) struggle to understand what the problem is. So, insofar as I am able to ascertain consensus, it is that any administrator who thinks that there is a benefit to Wikipedia to undelete parts of the history is free to do so (but this admin won't be me). Sandstein 08:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aprimo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The deletion of prior incarnation the page Aprimo on 05:01 01 February 2019 UTC may not have been compliant with CSD G6 there being (I suspect) history to the page. I suspect the page at that point was a redirect that had been converted from an underlying article. I understand he purpose of that deletion was so that replace with a draft incarnation going through AfC. This version warned If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move ...'. The the draft page at the time of the proposed article also indicated a merge may need to be considered. Additionally talk pages were not deleted/moved appropriately with their associated incarnations. These should have warned CSD G6 may be controversial. I have discussed with the deleting admin but have reached a good faith impasse on obtaining a copy of the deleted incarnation so at this point have chosen to ask for independent scrutiny. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Aprimo was a company that was independent and likely merited its own article, became part of Teradata for a number of years when it did not (and was I suspect properly was transformed to a redirect), and became an independent entity again and quite properly merited it's own article (subject to notability etc). The loss of the visibility of the pre-Teradata pages is to a degree unfortunate and the correct procedure in my opinion should probably have been to edit the redirect into an article. There is little question the current article content has now got to a fairly reasonable WP:NPOV, there being a COI aspect which is mostly irrelevant to DRV. The result of this review should not be simply to restore the deleted page replacing the current page. It may be to somehow perform a merge but that may now be worse than leaving as it. It is more to consider if CSD G6 and associated talk page handling was appropriately applied and documented and any lessons for the future. Please note I believe all involved have been acting in good faith. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm the onus of this problem so will reserve making a comment, except to express regret for any issues I created. (Also, in fairness, I'm not entirely certain I understand what's being proposed, so am probably not qualified to comment in any case.) I approved the article at AfC through process of G6 move of a redirect, failing to note that, in 2009, actual content apparently existed at the page for 58 minutes before the page was speedily deleted. I, again, apologize for my oversight. Chetsford ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Attempting to clarify ... the 2009 incarnation and its deleteion is not relevant. The concern is the redirect page deleted on 05:01 February 2019 had history ( I have indirect evidence this was likely) and was possibly not eligible for CSD G6. My understanding of CSD G6 is if you did not check that history (if it existed), nor checked talk page of the candidate draft article, nor organised/check for talk pages to be handled in parallel with the associated article page it is possible due diligence on the deletion of 05:01 February 2019 and associated clean up was not performed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The G6 deletion was incorrect, there being a major history, but I can't bring myself to care. The previous article, which somehow managed to survive for nearly seven years before being redirected in March 2017, was vapid marketingspeak with a presumeably-exhaustive list of industry awards to break up the monotony, created by a painfully-obvious PR agent (it even says so in their username!) and sourced entirely to referencebombed routine and trivial coverage. No company was so "meriting" of an article that we should've put up with one that bad for so long. We're not going to gain anything by restoring the history, except maybe ammunition for a future AFD. In any event, the three revisions in August 2009 are copyvios and must not be restored; the 14 revisions in September 2018 and later interleave with the current history, never had any content to speak of, and shouldn't be histmerged either. — Cryptic 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - What is the purpose to this Deletion Review? Will it have any effect on whether the article is kept, or does it only have to do with how to preserve the history, or whether to identify lessons learned about drafts created by paid editors, or what? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have raised the DRV because I was concerned the way the draft was introduced to mainspace was incorrect. Because there appears to be an existing redirect with significant history CSD G6 should not have been used to call for and effect the deletion, as seems to be confirmed by Cryptic; and but that rather a copy and paste move should have been executed to preserve edit history. Any lesson learned may be in the situation where a draft article is used to wipe a previous article possibly covered by a redirect, and possibly to remin that talk pages should be kept in sync. In terms of this DRV the result from this DRV may be that a histmerge should still be performed, or that it should have been performed but the benefit is not worth the work, or that the histmerge should not have been performed. COI/non-neutral editing is not technically relevant for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving procedures. It could be argued WP:G11 is relevant from COI/neutrality however criteria then says it alternative text is available (and it was), the text should be preferably be replaced rather than the article deleted. If anyone feels, or it may be the the outcome of DRV to suggest, the article be tested at WP:AFD though my feeling is the (current) article would survive such a process generally due to independent commentaries on the Teradata acquisition and sale price difference. Because I have become minded a histmerge is not a likely and because Cryptic has indicated Aprimo has been apparently subject to promotion by Aprimo Public Relations in the past I have referenced it from the article talk page ... however that is not relevant to the discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This discussion, ongoing for a week or more in various locations, reminds me of something Charles Matthews said years ago (he's one of the co-authors of How Wikipedia Works):
"We have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of discussion call them Wonkish and Arbish.
"In Wonkish, discretion stands for certain vague and disreputable areas of policy where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention and the application to the mission of writing an encyclopedia."
I postulate that the original poster here has been speaking in Wonkish, while most admins and other experienced editors addressing these questions have been speaking in Arbish. – Athaenara ✉ 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • A substandard article existed at Aprimo. The substandard article was converted to a redirect in March 2017. The redirect was deleted in February 2019 to make way for a move of Draft:Aprimo to Aprimo. Djm-leighpark wrote, "One issue that resulted from this is that the associated talk page was not deleted and has become associated with the current article, making references to the article before it was created."

    Cryptic noted that some of the revisions from the article interleave with the revisions from the September 2018 deleted version of the article. This means there are parallel versions. It would be inadvisable to do a history merge since interleaved revisions from both article versions would make the history difficult to read.

    To address Djm-leighpark's concerns about the missing history and to address the parallel versions concern, the deleted history (absent the three August 2009 revisions that are copyright violations) could be moved to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history. A link to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history could be added to Talk:Aprimo. See Talk:Fluffy bunny#Old article at this title, Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old history, and Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old talk page for one way this has been done.

    I cannot make a determination about whether the old content of Aprimo is worth retaining since I do not have access to the deleted content. Based on Cryptic's description of the content, it is likely that the old content of Aprimo is not that useful. But since Djm-leighpark ( talk · contribs), a good faith experienced editor, thinks there is value in retaining the deleted revisions, I recommend implementing the Talk:Aprimo/Old article history approach I suggested above.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I would like to commend Cunard of his analysis and am supportive of his suggestion. While the usefulness of the restore likely minimal the history gives some insight (albeit biased) into the not totally straightforward history of Aprimo, some insight into previous promotional editing and compfort of no copyvio's. That said I estimate the chance I will use that is possibly less than one percent. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification of my own position: any admin could do what's being asked here if they felt it should be done. I don't and won't, but if another admin does I won't consider it wheel-warring and won't kick up a fuss. – Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thankyou for the comments and clarification, but may I point out that for my understanding of the DRV procedure people should make the view of the DRV clear not through comments ... though these have been useful in helping clarifying the situation, but by indicating their position on the validity of the deletion under CSD G6 and what action should be taken per WP:Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review. As original poster I am supporting overturn, action implement restore to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history per WP:Requested moves/Closing a page => Procedure for redirects with major histories (3) as suggested by a Cunard. (As original poster I cannot cannot !Vote.). Other options I see include oppose, action take no action .. I would read this as Cryptic's position above. Or another option would be to endorse the actions taken in terms of CSD G6 and that it was followed correctly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_February_6&oldid=1039506768"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE