User:ADilbert/Eazdeals – Restored and associated MfD re-opened. I'll note for the record that although I disagree with OP's rationale, DRV isn't the appropriate venue to host a de-facto MfD. As such, I'll invite interested parties to make their case(s) at MfD. FASTILY02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was tagged for an A7 delete. When it was declined and pointed out that a user page is not subject to A7, it was nominated for MfD but shortly afte tagged for G11. It was however, deleted under U5, and the MfD left open. I went to discuss that with the deleting admin, Fastily but the edit notice on User talk:Fastily indicates a lack of interst in discussiong u5 deletions, so i cam directly here.
So much for the history, now for the merits.
U5 specifically says with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. This page appeared to be a user draft, in an early stage of development. It consisted of a company info box, one sentence describing the topic in an apparently factual manner (eAZdeals.com is a web based reseller of computers and electronic equipment, and one sentence describing the purpose of the buisness in a somewhat promotional manner eAZdeals was developed to create an engaging on-line shopping experience that is easy to use while driving sales and increasing customer loyalty. No sources were cited. No other content was present. As a clear attempt at a reasonable draft of an article, U5 clearly does not apply.
G11 was not acted on, and it could be argued that it is therefore not relevant, but i am sure that someone will raise the issue. G11 says This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion Since the deletion of one sentence would make this clearly neutral it cannot be said to require to be fundamentally rewritten -- editing one sentence is not a fundamental rewrite.
Notability cannot be assessed at this stage of the development of a draft, I have no idea if this is a notable topic or not. But it does not qualify for speedy deletion under either G11 ( as requested) nor U5 (as indicated in the deletion log). The tagger is a very experienced editor, and the deleting admin is an admin. Both should have known better. I have reproduced eddentially all the content of the delted page here, and see no need for a temp undelete, but i will do that if requested. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my edit notice is not directed towards other administrators. Without commenting on the merits of this request, I have no objection to restoration provided you are willing to take full responsibility for this page. -FASTILY05:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the entirety of the content and it's been untouched for a decade, why is this here? It seems overly pedantic to me to try to keep this undeleted. What's going on here? SportingFlyerT·C10:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I care not about the page itself. Either G11 or U5 are perfectly reasonable. What I'm concerned about is that people are wasting effort on this trivia. It's a garbage page in user space. So what? There's tons of garbage in user space. It's not hurting anybody. Why did anybody even care about this enough to delete it? Why did anybody care enough about the deletion to bring it to DRV, where more people have to waste time on it? There's lots more important stuff that needs to be done. Let's move on. -- RoySmith(talk)15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw this at MfD, and would never have noticed the page if no one had tried to delete it. I care about mis-use of the CSD far more than I do about this particular page, although now I am tempted to see if I can actually develop it into a valid article. But I will not be dropping the matter at this point. The danger to the project of people who tafg and delete pages improperly is, IMO, far larger than any "junk" in user space. No one is forced to spend time discussing this who does not choose to do so. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I see something like this deleted as U5, I try to figure out the thought processes behind considering writing a draft, any draft, even a poor or promotional one, of an article to not be "closely related to Wikipedia's goals", before I even get to the clause that explicitly excludes "plausible drafts". Sometimes I take the tagger or deleting admin to task about it, and mostly get ignored. Eventually I come around to the cynical idea that, in practice, what's actually written at WP:U5 doesn't matter except for the part about "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages", and so the criterion is a handy tool for admins to delete anything in userspace that they don't like which was written by users too inexperienced to know how to object effectively.Anyway, endorse as a reasonable G11. Removing two thirds of the article's prose is a fundamental rewrite in my book, even if it's an easy fundamental rewrite. —Cryptic17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not a U5 as it was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article, however bad, and G11 could have been addressed by removing the "Concept" section. However what we would have been left with is a ten year old draft with 11 words of prose, an infobox, and no sources, written by someone with zero other edits, so I can't see any particular point in restoring it. Hut 8.521:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, as the tagger, I certainly thought that, as it was, it was purely promotional, with no content that would have made a credible claim of significance. I still think that it was a reasonable G11. I respectfully disagree with User:DESiegel that I "should have known better". I did find the U5 surprising. I see three possibilities, given that the thing was in user space: (1) overturn and delete as G11; (2) overturn and send back to MFD, which will get rid of it also; (3) endorse the U5 just to avoid the nuisance of a do-over; (4) promote it to article space and let it go to AFD. Yes, I have been working with the mathematicians today, and I changed the postulates in mid-stream. Either delete it, or let it be deleted, and it doesn't really matter how, and if an editor can create a case for notability, good for them. Whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFD and MFD are the same thing, just observed in different coordinate systems. Therefore your points 2 and 4 collapse to a single point, and you're right back to three possibilities. -- RoySmith(talk)03:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, do you not see that when an article or draft includes both promotional and NPOV content, and the promotional content can be removed in a single simple easy edit, that that is what both G11 and WP:ATD say should be done? That speedy deletion should be reserved for only clear-cut cases, and that when there is any reasonable alternative, it should be taken?
WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. and Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion for more information). It seems to me that this page could have been "handled" in any of several other ways, not involving deletion, much less speedy deletion.
It is true that if there are both promotional and NPOV content, the promotional content can be trimmed out. We can agree to disagree on whether there was any salvageable NPOV content. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith That is an amusing way to put it, but I think the differences between AfD and MfD are subtle, but important. In particular, notability is often the chief issue at AfD, but normally is not relevant to an MfD. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs06:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "This page appeared to be a user draft, in an early stage of development." - no, it's a page to host an external link created by a user with no other edits, ten years ago. It exists entirely for Search Engine Optimisation purposes, to cause their website to be higher ranked in searches and drive traffic there. WilyD07:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that that was the intent, but it never has worked. All Wikipedia links carry the NOFOLLOW attribute, and so none of them is ever used by any search engine to affect the ranking of any page linked to. That is why ba link to the "official" site in a draft about an organization which has not yet established notabilioty is not considered promotional. But if the concern was SEO, a simple addition of {{Userspace draft}} would have placed a NOINDEX attribute onto the page, so that no search engine would even consider the page or its links. WP:ATD surely suggests that such changes are better than deletion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOINDEX isn't foolproof. I tag all my user pages NOINDEX but I still occasionally find them in search results. Now if I were a marketer, "occasionally" would be more than frequent enough an occurrence for me. -FASTILY23:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proper procedures have not been followed here, but that appears to be because there isn't an exact procedure to follow for cases like this. We have some text that appears unlikely to be turned into an article, and if it was would likely be deleted as not meeting our inclusion criteria. Given that it is in user space it will not be linked in any search engine, so sniffing it out to delete it in dubious circumstances seems a waste of everyone's time. Now, this is not one of Giano's abandoned pages, such as User:Giano/ExchangeStreet Offices, Aylesbury, where if that had been deleted those involved would have met with some hostile resistance, but it still should technically have been left alone. That said, there is no benefit in keeping the material, so it being removed is not the hill we should be trying to defend. Neither endorse nor overturn, but simply sigh. I think what is needed here is a procedure to deal with dubious texts in userspace. A platform where we can discuss the matter and arrive at a consensus to delete. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a procedure for dubious text in user space. It is MfD. It had been started. Had it been allowed to go to completion, I would have had no argument here. I might have expressed a view at the MfD discussion, but if consensus had been formed at such a discussion, I would have nothing to say here. One might have wondered whether it was worth an MfD to delete such a page, but if consensus felt it was, so be it. But use of speedy deletion beyond the strict limits set out at WP:CSD is in my view always objectionable, no matter the nature of the page involved. The criteria page says at its start: The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here. (emphasis added.) It is that principle that is at stake here, and I defend it as per Wikipedia:Process is Important. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I don't think I've spent much time in MfD - I may do that for a while to get familiar with it. I agree with you that process is important, because without process there is a possibility that things we don't want to happen will start to happen. And I understand that you felt you had to come here rather than just giving the deleting admin a heads up because the admin had put up a notice on their talkpage which didn't encourage discussion about such matters. But at the end of it all, a page that should have been deleted has been deleted, so undeleting it in order to delete it through the proper process is starting to get a bit pointy. The process has already been messy enough with one admin simply undoing a A7 tag with an exasperated comment rather than helping that user with either a) advice, b) putting on the correct tag, or c) taking the article to MfD, or whatever. Then when the user takes it (appropriately) to MfD, another user tags it with G11 and a third user (non-admin) closes it as Speedy delete which an admin then does, but under U5. Process has been confused throughout, and discussion to point out the appropriate procedures would be helpful to all concerned, though I'm not entirely sure that this DRV is bringing such awareness to those involved as to where things went wrong, and how we can improve in future, especially as there is some disagreement as to how exactly it should have been deleted. So I'm back at sighing. As far as I can see there was no ill intent here - indeed, I think everyone here had good intent, but things didn't quite go smoothly. This happens. I think at this point if anyone wants to speak collegiately to anyone about their part in this process to gain some clarity about appropriate procedure moving forward, that would be helpful. I don't think this deletion should be overturned just to make a point when an informal chat will serve that purpose better (and perhaps Fastily could consider making it clear on their talkpage that they are not turning away genuine queries from admins or indeed non-admins regarding deletions, but simply directing users to the right place when appropriate), nor do I see it as appropriate to endorse a deletion that should have occurred in some other way, but I do see the benefit of simply letting the deletion rest as it is, and this review being quietly closed. SilkTork (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point of sequence. An A7 was declined in a fairly normal way. The tagger started an MfD, also rather normal. Another editor tagged for G11, and an Admin deleted under U5 with the G11 tag still on the page, and the MfD still open. Then i started the DRV, and only after that was the MfD closed because a deletion had already occurred. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs06:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my views: Had the speedy deletion not occurred, I would have opined Keep in the MfD, on the grounds that there was no policy-based reason for deletion. If this is undeleted and sent back to MfD that would be my view still. It might not prevail, but it is not true that everyone here is in favor of deletion, or agrees that thsi is a page that should have been deleted.". But a consensus MfDiresult would not have gotten me to start a DRV. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs06:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork calls for some clarity about appropriate procedure moving forward and to identifywhere things went wrong. Well, my view is that things went wrong when na page that did not hav G11 levels of promotion was tagged for G11, and wronger when it was deleted under U5. I will gladly assume that there was no ill intent, and I know that not everyone will agree with my view. As to "appropriate procedure moving forward" I think it is simple, don't tag for a CSD that does not fit the written criterion it is tagged for exactly, and don't delete under a criterion that doesn't clearly fit. If there is any doubt, allow a consensus XfD discussion instead. The CSD are bright-line rules, with no give in them, more so than almost any other policy on WP, expect perhaps BLP. They should be adhered to as such. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn U5 plainly does not apply here because even non-notable drafts are related to the purpose of Wikipedia. G11 doesn't apply because there is enough non-promotional content to make removing the promotion not a fundamental rewrite. * Pppery *it has begun...18:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
