From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lonsdale (closed)

  • Joe Lonsdale – Speedy close with permission to restore/recreate as desired. Combination of factors having changed (2024 sourcing) and sock farms and an admin with a desire to address the issues raised, which they have access and permission to. Star Mississippi 01:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joe Lonsdale ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was deleted in 2021 with only two non-sockfarm !votes — one from an editor who wanted to avoid rewarding apparent UPE, and one from an editor who felt the coverage was trivial. I don't think the deletion was unreasonable given the !votes, nor do I think the trivial coverage concern was unwarranted given that some editors had stuffed the page full of ~60 references that were largely trivial. However, I think some of the old sources combined with substantial available new sourcing justify undeletion, and I'm happy to do the cleanup necessary after the page is restored.

Lonsdale is notable as a founder of Palantir and later OpenGov and University of Austin. He is also among a group of politically active tech financiers who are pretty regularly covered in the news (most recently in a spate of coverage about a new super PAC for which he is evidently helping to fundraise — see NYT, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Recreate, or undelete it yourself if there's anything you find useful in the deleted history. You are experienced and trustworthy enough that you don't need to go through a draft, which is what we normally prescribe in such cases. Owen× 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • DRV unneeded Any admin is trusted to undelete any article, to draft, sandbox, or straight to mainspace when they see that a past consensus no longer applies, and demonstrate that, through their editing, to the rest of us. Really, you've got the tools for a reason: go improve the encyclopedia and don't stop here to ask permission. Jclemens ( talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No action. Agree with Jclemens. Undelete when ready to make the edits that prove the case. G4 won't apply if the result isn't a sufficiently identical copy.— Alalch E. 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I do think it wise to bring this to DRV first before doing the undelete. But in any case, yeah, go for it, just avoid being a G4. Hobit ( talk) 17:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't see the need or value for bringing things like this to DRV, because I don't see why it should be undeleted. If a requester doesn't know how to write a new article from scratch and has to have it refunded, then they aren't an experienced editor. The requester in this case is an experienced editor and admin and does know how to write a new article from scratch, subject to AFD. Oh, okay. The undelete isn't an undelete, but a view deleted article to verify that the new scratch-written article isn't a clone of the deleted article. And I have occasionally asked for a deleted article to be refunded so that I could compare a draft against it, and the usual result is that the admin tells me that the draft is a clone of the deleted article, so the draft gets rejected. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Concluding Comment - Can the checking of new articles when titles have been deleted be done at Requests for Undeletion rather than DRV? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per all votes above, either as a draft or directly into mainspace depending on how quickly GorillaWarfare wishes to update the page to include new information. I commend GorillaWarfare for seeking clarification on this topic via deletion review rather than unilaterally restoring the article. Some users could consider that an abuse of administrative privileges (I do not). Frank Anchor 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I've created an undeletion request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader.

In the process writing up a reply to Template talk:New discussion#Edit request, I went to read up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and found that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader was its previous iteration.

Would it make sense to undelete the old revisions of the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader (and its talk page) to the current page title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, so that we have a longer history of how the header looked like, who edited it (attribution), and discussion about it?

Graeme Bartlett recommended ( Special:Diff/1235028837) getting consensus here first. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 12:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Probably shouldn't be history-merged due to the parallel histories from February - April 2008, but I can't imagine why it shouldn't be restored and redirected. — Cryptic 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The current version is quite similar to the old version and would have been based off it, so it is required for attribution. So I support some kind of restore. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It was an out-of-process deletion. There’s no good reason to have it deleted. If attribution is required, that’s another reason to undelete. Neutral on undelete and redirect vs history merge. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I agree this makes sense. While I appreciate the referral here, I don't think that was necessary... unless you wanted us to publicly agree that our consent for such an undeletion wasn't necessary. Jclemens ( talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy undelete and redirect. This is uncontroversial. If it's undeleted and redirected it can still be history merged, and that does not have to be decided in a DRV.— Alalch E. 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 ( talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lonsdale (closed)

  • Joe Lonsdale – Speedy close with permission to restore/recreate as desired. Combination of factors having changed (2024 sourcing) and sock farms and an admin with a desire to address the issues raised, which they have access and permission to. Star Mississippi 01:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joe Lonsdale ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was deleted in 2021 with only two non-sockfarm !votes — one from an editor who wanted to avoid rewarding apparent UPE, and one from an editor who felt the coverage was trivial. I don't think the deletion was unreasonable given the !votes, nor do I think the trivial coverage concern was unwarranted given that some editors had stuffed the page full of ~60 references that were largely trivial. However, I think some of the old sources combined with substantial available new sourcing justify undeletion, and I'm happy to do the cleanup necessary after the page is restored.

Lonsdale is notable as a founder of Palantir and later OpenGov and University of Austin. He is also among a group of politically active tech financiers who are pretty regularly covered in the news (most recently in a spate of coverage about a new super PAC for which he is evidently helping to fundraise — see NYT, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Recreate, or undelete it yourself if there's anything you find useful in the deleted history. You are experienced and trustworthy enough that you don't need to go through a draft, which is what we normally prescribe in such cases. Owen× 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • DRV unneeded Any admin is trusted to undelete any article, to draft, sandbox, or straight to mainspace when they see that a past consensus no longer applies, and demonstrate that, through their editing, to the rest of us. Really, you've got the tools for a reason: go improve the encyclopedia and don't stop here to ask permission. Jclemens ( talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No action. Agree with Jclemens. Undelete when ready to make the edits that prove the case. G4 won't apply if the result isn't a sufficiently identical copy.— Alalch E. 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I do think it wise to bring this to DRV first before doing the undelete. But in any case, yeah, go for it, just avoid being a G4. Hobit ( talk) 17:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't see the need or value for bringing things like this to DRV, because I don't see why it should be undeleted. If a requester doesn't know how to write a new article from scratch and has to have it refunded, then they aren't an experienced editor. The requester in this case is an experienced editor and admin and does know how to write a new article from scratch, subject to AFD. Oh, okay. The undelete isn't an undelete, but a view deleted article to verify that the new scratch-written article isn't a clone of the deleted article. And I have occasionally asked for a deleted article to be refunded so that I could compare a draft against it, and the usual result is that the admin tells me that the draft is a clone of the deleted article, so the draft gets rejected. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Concluding Comment - Can the checking of new articles when titles have been deleted be done at Requests for Undeletion rather than DRV? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per all votes above, either as a draft or directly into mainspace depending on how quickly GorillaWarfare wishes to update the page to include new information. I commend GorillaWarfare for seeking clarification on this topic via deletion review rather than unilaterally restoring the article. Some users could consider that an abuse of administrative privileges (I do not). Frank Anchor 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I've created an undeletion request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader.

In the process writing up a reply to Template talk:New discussion#Edit request, I went to read up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and found that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader was its previous iteration.

Would it make sense to undelete the old revisions of the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader (and its talk page) to the current page title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, so that we have a longer history of how the header looked like, who edited it (attribution), and discussion about it?

Graeme Bartlett recommended ( Special:Diff/1235028837) getting consensus here first. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 12:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Probably shouldn't be history-merged due to the parallel histories from February - April 2008, but I can't imagine why it shouldn't be restored and redirected. — Cryptic 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The current version is quite similar to the old version and would have been based off it, so it is required for attribution. So I support some kind of restore. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It was an out-of-process deletion. There’s no good reason to have it deleted. If attribution is required, that’s another reason to undelete. Neutral on undelete and redirect vs history merge. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I agree this makes sense. While I appreciate the referral here, I don't think that was necessary... unless you wanted us to publicly agree that our consent for such an undeletion wasn't necessary. Jclemens ( talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy undelete and redirect. This is uncontroversial. If it's undeleted and redirected it can still be history merged, and that does not have to be decided in a DRV.— Alalch E. 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 ( talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook