Swami X (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was taken to AFD back in 2006, which ended in 'no consensus'; more recently, it was speedy-deleted by User:Scott MacDonald under WP:G10. (It has been preserved at User:Will Beback/Swami X.) This caused considerable dispute, see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Swami X and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Scott-mac allegedly unilaterally deleting articles using inapplicable G10 CSD. It was suggested at the ANI discussion that DRV is the proper place to assess whether Scott's deletion was appropriate, so I've brought it here to settle the matter. Personally, my feelings are that the subject of the article is of dubious notability, and I would probably have !voted to delete it at AFD; but it wasn't a G10 candidate, as it was neither an attack page nor unsourced biography. Scott MacDonald should have brought it back to AFD rather than using speedy deletion; the deletion should be overturned, and the article sent to AFD instead. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, we can't really AFD an article that is not in main space an Administrator has moved it to user space to improve and replace. If is going to be returned to mainspace .. who is going to do it? and if it is to be added to main space it should be policy compliant as it would now be classed as an addition. I fthe objective of this review is to return a BLP that is not policy compliant to the main space so that an AFD discussion can be held then I don't see any benefit in such a procedure and so I don't support that.Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin's comment. I'm at a loss to understand the point of this DRV. The article has already been undeleted (with my full consent) by Willbeback. Will indicated he'd fix it up and move it back, which I am delighted with. It has to be said Willbeback was not happy with my original deletion and we were discussing that on my talk page (the nominator, I note, didn't join the discussion - so this DRV looks a bit pointy). I've conceded G10 was probably not the best grounds for action. This has been a pathetically badly sourced BLP for over 4 years (unfixed despite an AFD) the main thing we can agree on is that simply putting it back into article space and leaving it to fester violates what we are about. I fail to see why those concerned with the article don't just fix it - there's nothing stopping them. There is simply nothing to undelete here - the only discussion is whether the article should be fixed in user or article space - personally I don't care. If anyone wants to move it back, feel free to do so, just please remove any unsourced material (youtube and wikimapi are not, I hope we'll agree, valid sources). I people want to discuss what I did, then my talk page or RFC are open - there's no deletion to undo.--Scott Mac 16:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's clear that there _is_ a need for a DrV because Scott seems to be only agreeing to the restoration of the article if it meets his view of what's acceptable in mainspace. "I'm not too bothered whether you work on it in userspace or article space, but if its in article space all unreferenced material should be removed until it is fully cited. That's the condition we agreed to my permitting undeletion." As far as I know an admin can't use IAR to speedy an article and then insist that others fix issues he doesn't like before it gets restored. So between the deletion being improper and the condition for restoration being improper I think we need to discuss at DrV.Hobit (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Erm - "As far as I know an admin can't use IAR..." surely IAR is about enabling any such action if it will improve the encyclopedia, there isn't a list of things which are/aren't permissible under IAR, that's sort of the point of IAR. SUre you can disagree with the application of IAR and as to if it does help improve the encyclopedia but that's quite a different argument. Regarding the conditions for undeletion, those conditions seem to be backed by policy albeit Scott Mac is asking for someone else to remove it, WP:V "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed", BLP extends this to a must be removed in certain circumstances, not a may be. If the article is restored with the unsourced material Scott Mac would be quite at liberty to just challenge and remove the material himself, and anyone wishing to restore it would be required to source it (Again WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."). I'm not sure quibbling about who takes responsibility for removing the material is a good use of time. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn and WP:TROUT to the deleting admin. First mislabeling something as a G10 and then using IAR to speedy an article? Neither is acceptable or within policy. The conditions for recreation are equally troubling Hobit (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion has already been overturned by Willbeback with my blessing. So, is this just about your wanting permission to move it back and leave it with uncited material for another 4 years? Why not move it back and simply remove the unreferenced material until someone can reference it?--Scott Mac 16:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've placed conditions on it's restoration in article space. The point of the DrV, as I see it, is to remove any such conditions. You don't have the right or authority to make such demands. If you're willing to back away from those demands great. Otherwise DrV is the appropriate mechanism to deal with improper deletions. Seeing as how it's still a red link, I have to say there is still a deletion to discuss.Hobit (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Why not indeed? This is what some of us have been saying should have been done in the first place. I really don't want to antagonize -- I fully understand the need to work cooperatively with others to do good things here -- and this comment is offered in good faith: if the solution is so obvious, why not just do it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting this. What conditions? The condition that an article on a living person should not be allowed to remain with grotesquely bad referencing (and links to copyvios on youtube) for another 4 years? That condition is policy last time I checked. I'm not preventing anyone moving the article back (doesn't even need an admin), but I fail to understand why you are so upset with my insistence that material on a living person needs solid referencing. All this discussion can do is to move the article back and I've said all along that can be done. If it is moved back, and for some incomprehensible reason the mover doesn't remove all the uncited or poorly cited material (which is almost the entire article last I looked), then I'll just remove it myself under the BLP, EL and copyright policy. Anyone reading this is free to cut to the chase and do that right now. There are no conditions.--Scott Mac 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the conditions I'm setting, there are no conditions. Marvelous, welcome to 1984. Please at least honestly debate this. You deleted out of process (for two reasons: no speedy criteria and it survived and AfD) and you are setting conditions for the article to be restored. At least admit what you are doing. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NB The article has for several years contained allegations of drug-taking and what might be termed "licentious behaviour" without one single valid reliable source. Yet people are objecting when I say that it needs some sourcing before being restored. Madness.--Scott Mac 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm unsatisfied with the sources in the userspace draft and I don't feel this material is yet suitable for the mainspace—if indeed it ever will be. I don't believe it's appropriate to place a BLP in the mainspace when we're missing details as basic as the subject's actual name, let alone his nationality, place of birth, year of birth, awards received, etc. To that extent, I endorse Scott Mac's actions.

  I agree with Hobit when he says there's a deletion to discuss here. If something's been turned into a redlink in the mainspace then administrative tools have been used and DRV has jurisdiction.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a system of law nor a bureaucracy, so talks of "jurisdiction" make little sense, we don't have a set of correct signatures and approvals to get to the right outcome. What can we actually achieve by discussing this here is a far more important question. Undeleting the article isn't possible (since it's no longer at the deleted title, but restored elsewhere). Movement of the article back to mainspace can be done whenever and by whoever wants to do so. Given that the deleter has conceded that G10 wasn't the best way to approach this they aren't likely to do that again, I don't think there is anything further to "prove", there really isn't much to discuss in this venue. As to if Scott Mac's initial action or suggestion about what needs to be done to the article to meet our core standards before being moved back, they are issues for WP:DR not DRV. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall: Your argument would imply it is acceptable to speedy any unsourced BLP. Given that we've had long discussions on exactly what to do with unsourced BLPs and deleting them for being unsourced has never remotely gained consensus, could you explain how deleting in this case is reasonable? Hobit (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  To 82.7.40.7, I would reply that the first and main place to challenge any deletion is DRV, and in that sense this is the proper place to talk about it. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia's not law or bureaucracy, "jurisdiction" is a convenient shorthand for what I've just said. To Hobit, I would reply that while I wouldn't approve of a general rule that says "all unsourced BLPs should be deleted", I do approve of the deletion in this particular case because (a) the article could be read as disparaging of a living person, (b) its sources don't seem reliable to me, and (c) we're missing basic biographical information such as his name, nationality, place of birth, year of birth, or awards received. That isn't to say that we could never have an article about this person, but it is to say that such a biography would need better sources to justify its existence.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There are videos of his work (which are reliable though may be a copyright issue) and an article in a mainstream newspaper. Oh and an award. Seems fairly reliably sourced. Notable is a different question, but certainly reliable. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The article seems to me to largely make fun of its subject using a swathe of unreliable sources. I don't really have a problem with G10 being used in this manner. Of course the information might all be true/verifiable which is fine, and then it wouldn't be disparaging, but in its deleted state it really wasn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Los Angeles Times, the main source, is a reliable source. The subject is a comedian who models himself after Lenny Bruce, and I don't see any thing derogatory in the article. If anything, it was overly positive, but that's not a reasons to speedy delete an article with sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The admin said that the article was unsourced, which is incorrect. The subject was a profile of a roughly 1500 word article in the Los Angeles Times and there are several other sources, including video documentaries. Scott claims that it links to YouTube copyvios, but from what I can tell the linked videos were uploaded by the copyright owners, but even if true a few links to YouTube are not a reason to speedy delete an article with other sources. It is not an attack page, and the only drug use mentioned is self-reported (and possibly exaggerated for effect). Since Scott says he consented to the undelete, I assume he will allow it to be moved back to article space as is, and improved as per normal procedures. As I wrote on his talk page, Scott should be more careful in speedy deleting articles to make sure they fit the SD, and if wants to delete articles outside of normal procedures by invoking IAR then he should do so explicitly and with a clear explanation for how it will improve the encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you cannot say "self-reported (and possibly exaggerated for effect)" unless you have a solid source to support that. The article does not. You cannot say "from what I can tell the linked videos were uploaded by the copyright owners" that is not sufficient. This article is pathetically sourced, and has been for FOUR YEARS. But you want to move it back for "normal procedures" to take effect? What, that's the "normal procedures" that have already so spectacularly failed. This is article matters, and is so easily sourced, why haven't you sorted it? Why are you so intent in putting it back with no adequate sourcing? This is simply disruption to prove a point. Well, OK, I'll restore it myself. It will read "is a person". And you can rebuild the article from there, with proper sources. OK?--Scott Mac 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that there was at least one RS in the article, could you explain why you didn't just remove the unsourced material and leave the article in place? Hobit (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that of the 15 sources, 14 were unreliable, I judged the article in its current state was unacceptable and that after four years that wasn't going to change. I don't think the excision you propose would have worked, but my deletion summary made it clear that any admin was (and is) free to undelete an do as you suggest, if they see fit. Look, I've no objection to this being put back in mainspace (I never had) I've huge objection to those who are asking for it to be put back with all the horrendous sourcing and unsourced statements - and it just sitting there for another four years. Anyone who thinks this article can be sorted, is free to do that right now, rather than continuing this pointless DRV to replace an article no-one (except Willbeback apparently) thinks is adequate for a BLP.--Scott Mac 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scott, did you read the LA Times article? Or any of the references in "Further Reading"? If there are problems with articles then we have a whole set of procedures to fix them. Admins who are not willing to use them and prefer the quick satisfaction of an out-of-process deletion should either seek to get the rules changed or stop ignoring them.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thankfully, ignoring the rules is a founding principle of this encyclopedia. And the "whole set of procedures" had abjectly failed. Look the only important thing here is not having very poorly sourced BLP hanging about for four more years. Process be damned.--Scott Mac 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • There were no clean-up tags on the page and you didn't use PROD or AFD. It doesn't seem like you used any of the standards procedures. There is no policy that says an article should be deleted if it passed an AFD four years ago but there are still some outstanding issues of concern. If there are problem, fix them. IAR is a rule, though to be applicable the action needs to actually improve the project. If you delete another article that doesn't meet SD criteria, please declare IAR and give a clear explanation.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G10 is a necessary but dangerous tool, just as calling something vandalism is a necessary but dangerous tool. When used inappropriately, it not just dilutes the meaning for times when it is really appropriate, but it can serve to cast an undeserved slur on the editor or the subject. Unless the deleting admin actually thinks that it is a n attack page, it is no service to anyone or to the encyclopedia to so label it. If anything, it is sometimes the better administrative discretion and the proper use of IAR to not use the G10 criterion, to avoid calling attention to the article. A poorly sourced BLP should be fixed, but it is against policy to use that as a reason for deletion. IAR is for use when it is necessary to make an exception of fill a gap, not because one disagrees with the policy. If I wish that poorly sourced articles were automatically removed, and used IAR for that, I do not deserve to have the power to remove articles, just as if I thought unsourced BLPs should be kept forever without even an attempt to look for sources, and used IAR to do that. I could as an admin think either of these things, and advocate for them, if I cannot resist the temptation to do them it's another matter. If one editor things the sources are adequate for a BLP and another does not, there is only one way to settle this, and that is AfD, not for one of the editors to use admin tools to enforce his own view. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's simply nonsense. The article HAD been to AFD four years ago. AFD said "notable" and did nothing about sourcing. The oft-repeated mantra that we should send badly sourced articles to AFD is simply a smokescreen for those that think badly sources BLPs like this are not a problem. I suppose I could have prodded it, but you would have unprodded it as "notable and fixable" and it would have festered for another few years. The irony here is that the inclusionists don't want it deleted, but they'd rather demand process than accept that if people want the article kept then they need to make it compliant with policy. Given them time if fair enough, but four years is too long.--Scott Mac 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scott, you are as capable of fixing it as anyone else. If you want it improved, improve it. If you want it deleted, find consensus for doing so. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - ARS hysteria running amok yet again. Work on the userspace version, then move it to article-space when deemed ready. There's nothing more to see here other than the typical knee-jerk fanaticism. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Tarc, was the article ever tagged with {{rescue}}, or is this WP:BATTLEGROUND bluster? Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article tags have nothing to do with you and the comrades screaming the usual here at DRV, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • BATTLEGROUND, then. However, if there does appear to be anyone "screaming the usual" in this case, it certainly doesn't appear to be me. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Tarc here. If the end result is a better sourced article then all this policy wonkery is pointless. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conflicted As I commented on the ANI thread, it would probably have been better if Scott MacDonald had not performed this particular deletion himself, given the unresolved animosity over his past out of process deletions. At the same time, I agree that the article did have its defects. Putting it in a NOINDEX'ed spot for repair might have been a better option. For future such articles, maybe we need a BLP Incubator? Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So let's walk this. #1 There was no speedy criteria this met. #2 The article survived an AfD so there should be no speedy to begin with. #3 we have a very solid source on the subject. I can see opening an AfD. But trying to speedy it? Come on. Either we have policies and procedures or we don't. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was not a "very solid source". The sources were guff, there was one source in "further reading" which may have been good - and I welcome anyone rebuilding the article from that source.--Scott Mac 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is a solid source. Even if some sources in the article don't meet standards, if there is one good source then the article is not unsourced, as has been claimed repeatedly. As it happens, there are two or more good sources. Are you still insisting on deleting the article, or can we bring this to a close?   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The central claims of the article were improperly sourced. An inaccessible LA-Times article from the 1970s was only being used to source one bit of trivia. That's a bogus defence. Anyway, I've replaced a sourced stub - it took my 3 minutes and you could have done it at any time.--Scott Mac 10:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn and list at afd- As Hobit points out up above me, it didn't meet any speedy criteria, and having survived an AFD previously, was ineligible for speedy deletion. As there are legit questions about the article being wikipedia-worthy, an AFD to sort it all out should have been the path taken. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have absolutely no objections to a properly sourced article being on Wikipedia, why would I want to AfD it? AfD'ing it wouldn't have sorted the four year badly-sourced article violating BLP problem. The last one didn't.--Scott Mac 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]