- Northwest Post-Grunge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The original article was deleted because it used trivial sources. The article was recreated from scratch using those two trivial sources to flesh it out (they were still extremely useful and added good content to the article), but I added a third non-trivial source that expanded the article by adding 4 paragraphs that were non-existent in the original deleted version. Yesterday @John B123: nominated the article for speedy deletion using the criteria that it was identical. They also claimed that they never reviewed the deleted article to compare to see if it was identical. John B123 never supplied additional rationale for deletion and refused to engage in the talk page in any substantial way. Now @TomStar81: has deleted the article per the speedy deletion nomination and claims it was because it was identical-G4 (it was not), the article was dependent upon another article-G8 (also, no), and no credible indication of importance-A7, which states "albums" are exempt (this is an album). The article was deleted on false pretenses. This article should be reinstated and perhaps a tag put on it, that it could be improved with more refs, but not outright deleted. As it is, I feel the article was just fine with three references. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I'm a little frustrated that no one participated in the talk page, especially TomStar81. What's the point of contesting a deletion nomination in the talk page if no one is going to engage? It appears very large brush strokes are being used by both John B123 and TomStar81. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion Article was deleted four days before being recreated, at the same level as it was before, with only one new source and now meaningful addition of material. Deletion via AFD allows a wide degree of latitude on considering what constitutes G4, which is intended to mean anything recreated at or near its previous level, and this had only one new paragraph, which clearly places it within G4 territory. I think this is less about contesting a deletion and more about the editor not getting his or her way, which suggests OWN issues - and in fact, the block log shows disruptive editing blocks. I'm disincline to assume that this is a genuine deletion review since it came not after the afd, but after a TOOSOON attempt to recreate an article the community already ruled shouldn't be here - at least not yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment The criteria for WP:G4 is not a simple "identical" but "substantially identical". G4 is not applicable where "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". This is not the case here. The article was originally deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, this was still the case when the article was recreated. The talk page was deleted per WP:G8, not the article. No I wouldn't engage on the talk page after suffering WP:PERSONAL and WP:ASPERSIONS. I note the editor has copied the article to their sandbox. I would suggest the way forward would be they worked on the article in sandbox and when they feel it meets WP:NALBUM they can submit it to WP:AfC. --John B123 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you claiming you can see the article now, when you couldn't before? It's very disingenuous to say the article is substantially identical when it has been expanded from a stub article to an article with four paragraphs that grew by 400% from the original. The original had one paragraph. I'm not sure what your idea of substantially identical is, but in my eyes, I would expect more than just 50% identical which the new one is not. There was hardly any prose on the old article. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We do tend to say that, where there's doubt, a new source inoculates against G4.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For the record, both version of the deleted article may be viewed here for those interested in the validly of the CSD G4 deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @S Marshall: notifying you of the versions posted above in case you wanted to change/adjust/comment further on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely very similar, and we don't want to give people an incentive to drip feed new sources one by one to get repeated bites of the cherry at AfD. I understand why you G4'd it. But I think it's important to be consistent with the previous decisions we've made at DRV, so I'd send it back to AfD. I differ from Robert McClenon and Jclemens in that I think one new paragraph doesn't matter. Only the new source matters.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually referenced the source, not the paragraph. I agree that sources are the bigger deal when something has been deleted on the basis of notability, rather than just the prose. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more than just an additional paragraph. If you want to get super technical, I'd say 2.5 paragraphs more than the old, and if you give me more time, perhaps 5 or 6 new paragraphs (see my other comments below). Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G4 and restore, while permitting a second AFD. The addition of a paragraph and a source renders the second version not "substantially identical" to the first version. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more than just an addition of an article. I added two paragraphs, plus some additional content in a third paragraph that was not in the original. When @TomStar81: says on my talk page that the new article "added literally nothing" that's complete hyperbole, and I expect more from experienced Wikipedians who are in charge of these rote tasks. It's comments like these that make me disregard all their following comments and question their role here at wikipedia. If you look at the size of the article, that alone would clue you in that the new article is substantially larger, relatively speaking. It's larger than a stub article, which is essentially what the old article used to be. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G4 per Robert McClenon. AfD may or may not delete it, but "substantially identical" does not include adding another source. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 11:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G4 and restore. I don't think G4 applies as the recreated article is about 50% longer than the deleted version with an additional ref, so it is not substantially identical. However, it is debatable whether the issues identified in the AfD have been addressed, so to my mind, the most appropriate course of action is another AfD to discuss that. That said, I would probably support deletion at AfD as this is a non-notable album from a non-notable label. It has now been created four times over the years, so if it is deleted this time I would hope it is salted. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be doing my maths wrong. 50% means adding half as much more? It's more accurate to say the prose of this new version of the article has been expanded by a factor of 4 (is that 400%?). Which is why I find it very disingenuous when TomStar81 says on my talk page that "literally nothing" has changed from the old version to the new. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with S Marshall, the only real question is if the new sources is any good. I can't see the whole thing (I assume we are talking about "Street Style in America: An Exploration Illustrated Edition"?) but what I can see does appear to be very short. If that's the wrong new source, let me know. If it's the right one, just how much is there in this source? Could you email me a copy of the relevant page(s)?. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The new source is not the Street Style book reference which makes up most of the content of the first paragraph in the article of current discussion. It is the Northwest Independent Music News no. 33. I have a digital copy of the paper for anyone interested. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) The Northwest Independent Music News, an offline source, appears to have been the one added. Although looking through the history, it appears that the CSD nominator pretty flagrantly exceeded 3RR to restore the CSD tag. Did that get made exempt from 3RR for some reason while I was inactive? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be an explicit exception, but the removal of the speedy by the article creator isn't an "allowed" edit, and you could argue that it's covered by either 3RR exemption #8 or arguably #4. Perhaps there needs to be an explicit exemption - it's not the sort of edit that 3RR is meant to discourage. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments. The article has two non-trivial sources, one of which is a direct mention of the album in a book in relation to the time period change from grunge to post-Cobain's death. That's what is tackled in paragraph 1 of the new article, and is expanded upon from the old article. The next two paragraphs revolve around the non-trivial newspaper source Northwest Independent Music News, which I may be able to use to add another small paragraph while citing it. The final paragraph gives some context to the label, the previous release, and the the producer advertising the new comp (the article of discussion). The last is certainly trivial, but it helps flesh the article out a bit - its location at the end of the article's body is probably misplaced. It's still possible I will be able to add another source to this deleted article from a run of newspapers called the WOW Hall notes, as well as the Oregon Daily Emerald. I ask for two things in the review during your consideration: acknowledge the previous deletion was done in error, and if need be put it up for AfD, but speedy deletion was hasty and in error. Second, give me some time to find more sources to cite. I think it can be done. Yes this article has been neglected for some time, but coincidentally I have come into a cache of various publications that are highly useful for encyclopedic sources and I haven't fully digitized them for review and use on Wikipedia. I've also created a new band article for Bogwon (AKA Jolly Mon) which are featured on the album at the same time this article was deleted - which was one of the criticisms of the previous AfD's (essentially too many red links). I may be able to do more with my new resources. In fact, I've made a small goal of creating more articles on the music scene of Oregon from the 90s, and recreating the Elemental Records article that didn't have enough sources before. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Breaking News: The article still fails both the GNG and NALBUM, and you've done exactly nothing to break that streak in any way, shape, or form. If its been deleted 4 times, each time, unilaterally and unequivocally, then it clearly and unmistakably means that in its current, very small, very non-compliant with Wikipedia policy and guideline way it is once again going to end up very deleted, and none of your BS here or there is going to change that inevitable outcome whatsoever. The only thing you're going to gain is a bad reputation for disrupting Wikipedia to push what you mistakenly believe to be a notable topic on this site when you've been told 4 times previously its not notable and should not be here, which in turn could get you blocked, topic banned, or simply kicked of site. You need to stop wasting our time because even if you win this battle, you will lose the war at afd, and it will be with SALT this time. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is particularly uncharitable and unhelpful. Yes, the album may indeed not meet inclusion criteria, but let's save the vitriol for actual trolls, not passionate editors doing their best to include a niche topic that probably doesn't fit, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sage advise. I'll stow the powder for now and wait for the afd, since at this point I'm all but certain we're gonna end up there again. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a G4 speedy deletion was appropriate here, because the article was not substantially the same. As such, the deletion must be overturned. I very much doubt it will survive another AFD, but to AFD it must go. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh When this was sent to AfD, it had one source and one sentence of prose. Now it has three sources and three paragraphs of prose. Unfortunately, as discussed at the AfD, none of the sources appear to be any good, and the new one doesn't appear to work for GNG either. So we have a dilemma: technically this is an overturnable G4, but common sense dictates that there's been little if any improvement in the demonstration of notability. In short this is exactly the type of situation G4 is meant to address, but we're loathe to apply it because there's enough of an argument that it's not "substantially identical." I assume we're headed towards another AfD, but I don't really see the point of that. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: I think you mean 4 paragraphs of prose. Third and new source is non-trivial. How does it fail GNG? As far as I can see, the new source passes WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article definitively fails WP:GNG. I can't see the new source, but the other two sources are so poor for notability reasons (one sentence in a book, and a listing in a list in a local paper, used to cite a sentence about another album unrelated to this album) that even a new source can't rescue this thing. But this isn't another AfD: it's to determine whether the last deletion/redirect was appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: Understood about the AfD, but you still seem to be dodging the question. You said the new "source" fails GNG, and now you've moved the goal posts to the "article" fails GNG. My original question was how does the new source fail GNG per your remarks: "none of the sources appear to be any good, and the new one doesn't appear to work for GNG either." I'm not sure what you mean by local paper. The paper isn't local, it's Pacific Northwest which is a region. It's a region so big, that it's bigger than many U.S. states and European countries - so "local" seems to be extreme hyperbole and lacking definition. So far, I don't see any rationale to support your statement that the new source "can't rescue this thing." It's a non-trivial, non-local music newspaper source. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three sources in the Wikipedia article. Two of them clearly do not count towards notability. A third source exists. I can't access it. Even for the sake of argument the new source clearly counts for notability reasons, the Wikipedia article still doesn't pass the requirement of the GNG. But that's not at issue here, that's for the AfD, since it seems likely we'll be patient enough to overturn the G4, which is what this discussion is about. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, so it appears you were speaking beyond your faculty on the third source. I understand that the article may not meet GNG. I want you to know that in the presumably upcoming AfD, I will be asking for more time to flesh the article out, because I feel I can probably find two more non-trivial sources for the article. All I ask is just give me some time - and that never hurt anyone. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
