Speaker Knockerz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A couple of months ago, I created in my user draft a lengthy and well-sourced article on the late rapper Speaker Knockerz using sources deemed reliable by the community (see WP:MUSIC/SOURCE). 8 years prior to the creation of my version of the article, a poorly sourced article on Speaker Knockerz was published and went through an article for deletion nomination where the topic was deemed non-notable and consequently resulted in its associated article being deleted and salted. Seeing as the page was previously salted against creation, I made a request to remove the protection on the title so that the article could be created. An administrator fulfilled my request and a couple of months later, a contributor opened a second article for deletion claiming that my article was an identical version of the 8-year-old article and requesting its deletion. An administrator found the contributor's words sufficient and closed the discussion a mere 6 minutes after it was opened failing to look further and leave room for debate. My version of the article was not only far from an identical copy of the deleted version but also automatically rated as B-class with information coming from numerous well-known sources. Although he might not have been Wikipedia standard notable at the time of his passing, Speaker Knockerz's legacy was solidified post-humously with him now being known as an influential figure of modern trap, being cited as an influence to numerous prominent modern-day rappers, and even being the subject of a musical tribute by Kevin Gates which landed on the Billboard 100. I find it extremely disappointing to see my hours of research in order to document the rapper's legacy erased in such a rushed and careless manner. Célestin Denis ( talk) 18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

If an administrator could provide an archive of my deleted version of the article it would really be helpful to solidify my case. Célestin Denis ( talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'm interested in what uninvolved administrators have to say about the similarities between the two versions. WP:G4 only applies to essentially identical copies, so it should be easy to see if there's been a mistake. Are admins able to see multiple deleted versions? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) ^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  The page was temporarily undeleted and history is now made available. It is now clear that the 2014 version of the article is not similar to my version. Célestin Denis ( talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. (I have undeleted all revisions of the history for G4 review purposes, not just the latest incarnation of the article.) Daniel ( talk) 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• @ Célestin Denis: Please advise the administrator who most recently deleted the article that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at WP:DRV. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• @ Callanecc: Célestin Denis ( talk) 7:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and finish discussion: Looking at those couple versions, WP:G4 clearly does not apply. Notability is another question entirely - Looks like it passes my standards, but I'm pretty lenient and I realize this isn't the venue so, at a minimum, the AfD should be allowed to run its course. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) ^{Talk to Me!} 19:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist G4 is not appropriate in this situation. The article was not salted, at least through an AFD discussion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn and relist You can't shrodem a shrug but you can shrug a shrodem. Errr... Do not G4 articles that aren't close to being identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist WP:G4: "not substantially identical to the deleted version". Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist Per all above. G4 does not apply here. Frank Anchor 03:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist - I have not seen the 2014 version of the article and am relying on the opinions of administrators who have seen the two deleted versions and said that they are not the same. There are a few matters that make this case confusing, but it appears that:
  • The article was first created in 2014, shortly after the death of the subject.
  • The article was nominated for deletion, citing notability and sourcing considerations. The AFD was closed as Delete in September 2014 and the article was deleted.
  • The article was recreated three times in 2015, and was deleted three times in 2015 as G4.
  • The title was salted in 2015 due to the repeated recreations.
  • The appellant requested in 2022 that the title be unsalted so that they could create a new article on the subject.
  • The new article was nominated for deletion in January 2023. The nomination was an AFD, but the rationale was mostly G4 rationale. Maybe the nominator did an AFD rather than a G4 because they couldn't see and compare the 2014 article.
  • The AFD was closed as Delete, not Speedy Delete, but the closure was done almost immediately after the AFD was opened. The log indicates that the deletion was G4, although the AFD just says Delete. I see the close of the AFD as sloppy in not stating in the AFD that it was a G4 Speedy Delete.
  • If the 2014 article and the 2022 article are not substantially the same, a seven-day deletion discussion is in order.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert McClenon You can see the 2014 article from history, as all revisions have been undeleted starting with the initial creation. — Alalch E. 10:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn and relist. Obvious error. — Alalch E. 10:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• relist This is very much a WP:TROUT case. I'd really like to hear from the deleting admin. Hobit ( talk) 18:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4, restart AfD Per all of the above. Jclemens ( talk) 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Akinlolu Jekins ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Following the AFD discussion, Chagropango ( talk) hinged her argument on the reliability of PulseNG as a valid source of information, and stated expressly that it is a pass if PulseNG is credible. We editors on Wikipedia are known to be researchers, so I'd kindly request 1) the jury looks into accuracy of content from PulseNG, 2) Check for other sources if the information stated in PulseNG exists elsewhere.

For the record, PulseNG is the most authoritative source of entertainment news in Nigeria. This information should kindly be researched and confirmed/debunked.

DOOMSDAYER520( TALK| CONTRIBS) admits he 'comes close' to notability and said he needed more coverage, and the article may be an a promotion attempt. I disagree for the following reasons;

1) the article did not have promotional content to it, and no other reviewer seconded a motion that it was promotional.

2) It was speedy deleted and I challenged successfully for a review of the content before it was re-instated. Furthermore, if the article comes close to being notable and needs more coverage, does it not imply obliterating the article is not doing justice to our goal of curating and serving encyclopedic information, especially with developing pages on Wikipedia? If it was a stub and given some time for upgrade like the many others we currently have on Wikipedia?

Thirdly, the page obviously had a bad history I was not aware of; I feel strongly that influenced this decision to delete this page.

Finally, I recommend the draft page be made available so it can be further developed. Thank you. Pshegs ( talk) 12:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - DRV is about reviewing whether or not the closure of the deletion discussion was performed properly. It is not the place to relegislate the merits of the article. As I read things, there were two respondents in the discussion. One had a strong case that cited multiple policies on notability that the article failed to pass. The other was on the fence due to the potential questionability of PulseNG. Given these responses in the discussion, Liz closed the discussion as delete. This looks correct to me. I recommend that Pshegs discuss at WP:RSP about adding PulseNG to the list of perennial sources to remove the issue regarding using that website as a source for notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to soft delete (if the page was eligible for soft delete. Otherwise endorse). There was one delete vote along with the nom. There was also one "weak keep or weak delete" vote, which I will interpret as "neutral." With minimal participation in the AFD, I have no issue with restoring this page (my preference is in draftspace because the reason for deletion was a lack of WP:SIGCOV). Frank Anchor 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel ( talk) 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - while the final !vote appears on first glace as indecisive, a thorough reading shows a sentiment more towards delete, than keep. There's an overall, policy/guideline-based consensus for delete. While the nomination fails to identify a procedural flaw with the close, purely for informational purposes, the NPP source guide indicates no consensus on the reliability of PulseNG. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to relist I don't think we have consensus on the sources at this time. It's not been relisted and only one person other than the nom stated a clear opinion. I don't think this needed to be closed yet. And frankly, I think it's a close call--the sources are hard to evaluate. Hobit ( talk) 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Hobit. Jclemens ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the discussion consists of two policy-backed delete !votes, plus a comment that is back and forth but appears to be leaning delete. That strongly suggests a consensus to delete. I might have considered soft delete owing to low participation, but I don't see any indication this needed to be relisted. I would support draftification. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 23:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply