I am requesting to overturn the decision to speedy delete Instana. I recreated the page today, almost 9 months after it got deleted on February 1st. As you can see on the deletion discussion from January, the results are far from clear. It was nominated for deletion, because I ignored the comments by two editors which were made during WP:AFC. This also was pointed out by another editor who voted *keep*. I published the page because the AfC process was not helping to build a good page. In fact, I came up with the structure myself after checking out similar companies on Wikipedia. I had hoped for editorial help during AfC, but this has not happened. Instead, an WP:AFD was called on the page. After 3:2 votes, the AFD got relisted twice to generate consensus. One more editor referenced the AfC, one agreed with the editor who proposed deletion, and a third one voted keep. I accepted the vote of the editor community at that time, even though in my opinion this was not a clear result. I am bringing this up, because it is important for the Speedy Deletion I am asking to overturn today. As said, I recreated the page today, adding about 200 words of new material to it. I did not add new references yet, mainly because I did not want to litter an article with references, just to make a point. as WP:ARTN says: The subject matters for noteworthyness, not the article. I recreated the page to have it re-examined by the editor community under WP:NTEMP. There is plenty of new evidence (SDtimes, devops.com, Container journal, Yahoo Finance, InfoQ, venturebeat, Rheinische Post, Süddeutsche Zeitung) that together with the existing material could tip the scales. I am not asking to agree here whether Instana is noteworthy or not, although you are free to voice your opinion. I am asking to undo the speedy deletion, because it was incorrect to perform it. It was deleted under WP:G4 which excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". This has not been evaluated by the deleting admin, as he confirms on his talk page, where he admits to not have read the page (nor my comment objecting deletion on the talk page). Other editors besides me already began improving on my work for the page. I would appreciate if the page could be restored, and if after it has been further improved, we can still call for a new AFD vote on the current evidence that we have. Also the page was locked, which I consider overreacting. I reached out to the deleting admin but in a shoot-first mentality he says he will only undelete after I provide him enough proof. Which is not what I understand under consensus. (Please note, that I declared WP:COI - you can find out after reading the page why :)) FabianLange (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FabianLange, the community had already decided that the subject was not notable enough for an article. Are you arguing that the decision was wrong? Or that notability has changed since the AfD? – bradv🍁 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per nom statement that "I did not add new references yet, mainly because I did not want to litter an article with references, just to make a point." If the recreated article has no new sources, then G4 was correct. New GNG sources would need to be brought forward for undeletion/recreation. – Levivich 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link to previous discussion regarding this, wherin I not only read the page, confirmed I'd read the page (both versions), I also performed a document dif and pasted the changed content on my talk page for discussion and opined that it was mere product promotion and said nothing about company notability. Given that all that was covered, it's surprising to me to read here that I never did any of that. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all around. Killer's deletion of this was a correct application of G4 for a substantially recreated article. The original AfD consensus was correctly judged by Randykitty to be delete. Given Fabian's COI if they have no sources - better sources that weren't discussed at the AfD then AfC is the correct venue for a new article. But I see no new English sources that would further establish notability, while I didn't look for new German sources, don't think the German language sources added when it was at AfD show notability either. TLDR: Properly deleted at AfD, speedy deletion was justified, no new sources suggest a change in notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse despite having voted weak keep in the original AfD. The G4 decision is obviously correct if, as others have said, it is the same article that was originally deleted. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AFD close was obviously appropriate given the clear consensus to delete, and the new version of the page was not significantly changed; KillerChihuahua's G4 deletion was entirely correct. Yunshui雲水 18:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Deletion review is not supposed to be a re-hashing of the AFD. We are only supposed to determine whether the consensus was properly interpreted by the closer. Therefore, whilst I think there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources to sustain notability in this case (particularly the Handelsblatt article, but also numerous other articles) I don't think the closer was incorrect in closing the original AFD as delete. Speedy deletion is also correct when someone recreates the article, so the deletion of the re-created article was also correct. I will say, however, that if FabianLange creates a new article, which is not simply a recreation of the old one, incorporating all of the references discussed here and in the original AFD, I think it should be an easy keep if it comes back to AFD. FOARP (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A clear consensus to delete at AfD. No comment on the WP:G4 as I can't see the article, but other users I trust have endorsed it on those grounds, and I'll trust it. SportingFlyerT·C 20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, the only additional content is in a box on my talk page here. No other content was added. KillerChihuahua 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looking at the cited text-in-a-box on KillerChihuahua's talk page, that sounds like WP:G11 material on its own. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (I nominated the January 2019 AfD.) There are good reasons why editors should not create or edit articles where they have clear WP:COI. As RoySmith observed above, the text boxed on User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Speedy_Deletion_of_Instana is a long way from acceptable, failing the Wikipedia is for reference, not marketing and Source, cite, and inform rather than sell or promote lines from WP:PSCOI. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, G4 was correctly applied here, basically per OP's own statement above, as the OP acknowledges that the re-created version did not contain any new references. The original poster, FabianLange, needs to develop an improved and better referenced version of the article in their userspace first. Since there are significant questions about the topic's notability, and, more importantly, since FabianLange has an apparent COI in relation to the article's subject, it would be advisable, after an improved version of the page is developed in userspace, to rout it through WP:AfC or to file a request for re-creation of the article here at WP:DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore as draft What everyone else said is correct, but if, as nom says, more sources exist and they just didn't add them, they can do so in draftspace, which is the appropriate place for COI creations anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Blatant promotion. Many purported sources, such as Forbes contributor articles, are non-independent promotion. Suggest allowing re-creation of a the draft Draft:Instana for the purpose of presenting WP:THREE notability-attesting sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2019–20 West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball team – Barkeep49's G5 deletions are endorsed. (Liz's were added too late [after this review should have been closed] to be sufficiently considered by the participants.) Although technically they qualify for G5 says it all. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This and the other articles listed below were deleted as G5 by Barkeep49 after it was revealed they were created by the sock of a blocked user. Although technically they qualify for G5, they were perfectly good articles and as myself, Chadmb2003, and mhults7791 expressed concern about on barkeep's talk page, the mass deletion of these articles makes things a lot harder for WP:CBB so close to the start of the season. Several other users expressed concern on WT:CBB as well. When questioned on their talk page, Barkeep admitted they had mixed feelings about it but felt it was just policy they had to do. However, at the very least, given the large number of articles and the time required to reproduce them, WP:IAR should apply in this case, and that's a policy too. Barkeep themself had difficulty giving a reason that this deletion actually improved Wikipedia, other than to say that's the policy, which really isn't sufficient by itself. Regardless, the fact that multiple editors expressed concerns show the deletion was not uncontroversial, which is required by any speedy criterion, G5 included.
Additionally, I am including the following deleted articles in this DRV for the same reason:
Additionally, I am adding the following articles which were deleted by Liz for the same reason. Although it is late in the process, the same logic obviously applies regardless of who deleted it so they should be included as well.
Endorse Deletions were within policy. The sockmaster was a community banned user as well. Kb03 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh – while the deletions were well within policy, if there are other editors willing to work on these articles they can easily be restored. That said, these aren't terribly in-depth and it wouldn't take much effort to recreate them from scratch either. – bradv🍁 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are several editors willing to improve them, myself included. The closing admin still refused to restore them. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does take a lot of effort to recreate these from scratch. Each game of the schedule has to have a decent amount of data for it. Date, time, TV information, conference opponent or not, opponent, arena/site, and city/state. This also does not including finding each of the opponent's page to reference to as well as finding and adding each team's roster and relevant player information (height, weight, hometown, year in school, etc). Re-creating these from scratch is anything but trivial. Chadmb2003 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't readers just go to the team's website if they wanted to get date, time, TV information, opponent, location, the roster, players' stats, etc., for the current, ongoing season? Why are we duplicating this information on Wikipedia? I read at Barkeep's talk page, an editor wrote "I had to go off-site to view the schedule." My response is: um, yeah, why would an encyclopedia reproduce a college basketball schedule, when that's available at a number of other websites? – Levivich 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in every single one of our articles is available in other sources. If it weren't, it would violate WP:NOR. That has to be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Smartyllama (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our articles combine information from multiple sources. Whereas, I can get everything on that list (schedules, roster, stats, etc.) from a single website like WVUSports.com or NCAA.com. No reason for us to be yet another website with schedules, stats, etc. It's an encyclopedia... we need prose summarizing multiple secondary sources, not reproducing primary sources like statistics. – Levivich 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As myself and several others have stated repeatedly, we will add additional content once these articles are restored. Forcing us to create a large amount of content from scratch makes it that much harder to go beyond that. This is neither the time nor the place for your ridiculous crusade. Smartyllama (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A WP:G5 was absolutely correct here. WP:TOOSOON would also apply. That being said, if other editors want to use the content, I don't have any problem if these are restored via WP:REFUND. SportingFlyerT·C 20:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The season's six weeks away at this point. WP:TOOSOON does not apply anymore. And I would have requested it at WP:REFUND but that explicitly excludes G5 deletions and the admin refused to restore it, hence we're here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have all of these seasons been covered substantively even though they're still a month and a half away? That's why I'm advocating for WP:REFUND, I understand the G5 exclusion but in this case G5 was appropriate and I'd like this to be closed as "appropriate close, but individual articles can be refunded in spite of the WP:G5 ban," especially since so many of our seasons articles violate WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyerT·C 21:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you call the close, but these article should be restored and given the deleting admin refused to do so and WP:REFUND explicitly says not to post there if it's a G5, this seemed like the only way. Smartyllama (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't need to be restored. As I've noted, the WP:G5 was proper, coming here was proper, I'm saying I believe the remedy should be you should be allowed to go to WP:REFUND in spite of the WP:G5 restriction having discussed it here. I don't want these mass-restored since there's a very good chance they violate WP:NOTSTATS as the season hasn't started yet. SportingFlyerT·C 22:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re NOTSTATS, just picking a few articles at random from the list: Louisville ([1], [2], [3]), Arizona ([4], [5], [6], [7]), and West Virginia ([8], [9], [10]) all have significant coverage that could be used to build up the articles if they were restored. I would assume the others do too, and would be willing to do that if and when they are restored. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and refund – According to WP:G5, a page should be deleted if it was created by a banned user *and* if it has no substantial edits by others. The vast majority of these pages did have substantial edits by other users of WP:COLB. After these pages were originally deleted, Barkeep49 restored 2019-20 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team to Draft as they indicated there was room for improvement on sources, and once I added several the page was restored. Can something like that not be done here for the rest of these articles? Chadmb2003 (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All articles with substantial edits by other editors, including several whose only other editor was an IP, have already been restored. So that element of G5 was not ignored. The list of articles here are ones that, outside of DAB fixing and the like, only the banned editor contributed to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know for a fact that I edited the Creighton one, so that is simply untrue. Who knows how many others you missed in your zeal? Smartyllama (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: I had missed this until now. I don't think I'm zealous about anything on Wikipedia but to the extent that I am this isn't it. Your only edit on Creighton was accepting it from Afc. I do not call that a substantive edit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Assuming the pages listed were only edited by the blocked/banned editor, this seems like a textbook G5 application, and I'm not seeing a reason to IAR for these articles (which I don't think comply with WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:NSEASON anyway). – Levivich 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the textbook WP:G5, this isn't the place to continue your crusade against sports articles - these articles are clearly notable as long as they don't violate WP:NOTSTATS (which most college season articles do, without making any comment on the contents of these articles). SportingFlyerT·C 20:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]Levivich finds a place to continue his crusade against sports articles. – Levivich 21:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the G5 issue, if they are notable but violate WP:NOTSTATS in their current form, they should be improved, not deleted. Several editors, myself included, have offered to do so in this case once the articles are restored. Smartyllama (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I'm really in two minds here, since something that's notable on WP:GNG grounds shouldn't be included if they fail WP:NOT. That's why I have my specific position - restoring articles which violate WP:NOT without a maintainer are useless. SportingFlyerT·C 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, myself and several other editors have offered to improve the articles if they are restored. If they fail WP:NOT now, they won't shortly if they are restored, and the solution is to improve them, not delete them. On the other hand, making editors recreate the existing content from scratch because of some absurd ad hominem argument gives them that much less time and motivation to expand them beyond what was already there. Smartyllama (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not suggesting you recreate the existing content from scratch, I'm suggesting we waive the WP:G5 requirement at WP:REFUND for these articles only so they can be restored when you or others are ready to improve them. SportingFlyerT·C 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is now. As I and others have repeatedly said. The longer we waste our time with this DRV, the less time we have to actually improve things. This whole process is totally ridiculous and violates WP:NOTBURO. Which, by the way, is also a policy. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nomination reads: "Although technically they qualify for G5 ...." and that's the end of it. They were procedurally properly deleted. Editors are free to request the restoration of individual articles for improvement, and admins are free to act on such requests (or not). Sandstein 07:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which I would happily do if WP:REFUND didn't explicitly exclude G5 articles. Several people here have said to ask at WP:REFUND, but this ignores the fact that WP:REFUND explicitly prohibits that. I'm fine with a closure of "Endorse but REFUND" but it would seem to me that that would contradict what it says at WP:REFUND and I'm not sure how else to overturn an inappropriate but G5-required mass deletion besides invoking WP:IAR, which others have been unwilling to do. Then again, ignoring the G5 exclusion at REFUND would itself be an appropriate use of IAR in this case, maybe it's OK. Smartyllama (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let user:Smartyllama have the deleted page’s references and start again. There is no creative content in the reference list, and so no attribution to give the banned editor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said above, it's actually a lot of work to recreate all the deleted content. And every minute I spend doing that is one less minute I can spend actually improving the articles beyond NOTSTATS. I don't have time to do both. I can either improve them or redo what was already done. I don't have unlimited time. And one of those options seems like it would improve the encyclopedia a whole lot more than the other. Furthermore, given the extensive formatting required to redo the work the other editor did, I could easily improve all the other articles in the time it would take me to recreate one from scratch. I don't have time to do that to all of them and I'm not going to waste my time redoing someone else's work when it would be way, way easier for an admin to just restore it. Smartyllama (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How much content was written by non-banned editors? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much was already written on these articles by non-banned editors, because I can't see the articles at this point. I do know, however, that myself and others were planning on improving these articles when they were deleted, but simply hadn't gotten around to it yet since we were working on improving other, related season articles (which according to the deleting admin weren't deleted, though at least in the case of the Creighton article, that's simply untrue as I remember editing that.) Smartyllama (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If G5 applied, it is the admin’s responsibility to make the judgement on whether to delete, which includes the judgement to decline a restoration. Banned means banned, it doesn’t mean banned unless the new content would take time to reproduce. Start again with the bare references, don’t undermine Wikipedians’ authority to ban. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe The problem is that what the banned editor did is by far the hardest part editing-wise due to all the tables and boxes and stuff. It would take me weeks of constant editing to reproduce his work and I don't have time for that, I want to improve articles, not do what has already been done because of some absurd ad hominem argument. I'll also note that in the time I wasted on this DRV, I could have vastly improved all the articles if they were restored, and it's stupid things like this that really decrease my motivation for the project. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are talking about this, which is nominally sourced to this. All directory information, the details unsourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, though I can't confirm if that's the latest version. I can easily find and add sources and additional content. Recreating the tables with the roster, schedules, etc. from scratch would be much, much harder. Smartyllama (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a citation for the schedule in the article, which took me about 15 seconds to find. It would take me several orders of magnitude longer than that to recreate the table from scratch. Or we could just restore the article and I could add the cite. That's a lot easier. Smartyllama (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that Liz deleted 2019–20 Utah Utes men's basketball team even though G5 definitely did not apply since I edited that extensively. Between this and the Creighton deletion, plus any others Liz may have deleted erroneously or non-erroneously, we need to heavily scrutinize the deletions to make sure G5 even applied to begin with. Also, if Liz can get me a list of any additional season articles she deleted under G5, I can add them to this DRV for the same reason. Normally I wouldn't add any so late, but I was just made aware of this and whatever logic applies to the Barkeep deletions should also apply to the Liz deletions and any others I may have missed. Smartyllama (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that several of Liz's deletions, including the Utah article, were erroneously tagged as G8 (which should have been reserved for the talk pages) which may be why Barkeep missed them when giving me the list. Regardless of how they were tagged, the same logic obviously applies one way or the other, and in any case the Utah article and any others where anyone else contributed should definitely be restored. Smartyllama (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list I gave you is of articles I deleted that I didn't restore. Anything Liz or any other sysop did about this banned editor would not be covered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, I misread the logs. I've stricken the incorrect parts and will be compiling a list shortly. Smartyllama (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 Can you move your additional comment above below our replies to the previous comment, please? Smartyllama (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it's my fault, not yours. I've fixed it. Smartyllama (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin note No content on any true substance should be in these deleted articles. Following the nuke I did based on the banned editor, I went through and restored any article with any substantive edits by anyone including IP editors. The deleted articles have only gnomish sort of edits. A typical article is 2019–20 Miami Hurricanes men's basketball team. This one had IP edits and thus was restored by me. But note that at the time of deletion how the content far surpasses what the single reference can support. And indeed still can support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it took me all of two minutes to find and add two more references. I could easily do that and more to all the other articles too. Recreating the tables and infoboxes would take significantly more work. What the banned editor did may not be significant content-wise but it was by far the hardest part editing-wise. Smartyllama (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
