- Slovio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Somewhat unusually, this is a request for a deletion review of a deletion review. The article in question is Slovio, which was very recently at DRV here. I have tried to discuss the matter with the DRV closer, JzG, and I invite you to review the relevant section of his talk page here. You will see from the talk page discussion that JzG closed the deletion review on the grounds that the nominator had a conflict of interest, and in JzG's words, "I am not big on giving spammers what they want." This is understandable and I don't dispute that part of it at all. However, my position is that the DRV did unearth sources and it ought to be possible to create a fresh article based on the sources we found during the DRV. I am willing to do this, and as a starting point, I would use a translation of de.wiki's article on the subject, which you can review here.It is arguable that this DRV is unnecessary because I can create a fresh article that overcomes the reason for deletion, but since the article has been deleted several times and a very recent DRV has confirmed the deletion, and I do not want to be accused of an end-run around process, I thought it would be wiser to gain the community's view first. —S Marshall T/C 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, speedy close, trout-slap for excess process-wankery - So not only do we have the tried-and-true "DRV is not XfD Round 2" cautions for DRV abuse, now we have to start using "DRV is not DRV Round 3" ? This sort of thing is making a mockery of the entire deletion/creation process. Seriously, go slap the big red button on my user page and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been done before. A bad close is worth reviewing even if at DrV. That said, I think Guy got the close right. However, his comments on his talk page are darn troubling. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's your sourced, neutral, completely different from the deleted version, userspace draft? I remain unconvinced that anyone but the inventor is persuaded of the importance of his constructed language, and he has been most assiduous in promoting it, not least on Wikipedia. We will need something weighty to overcome the reflex FOAD response which his previous request quite rightly provoked. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it should be necessary to provide a sourced userspace draft when I can provide a sourced draft from a foreign-language Wikipedia, as I have done. An automatic translation tool will turn it into
English annoying semi-literate Yoda-speak for you if you don't read German (and here is a direct link). However, if there is a consensus here that I should translate it properly into userspace first, with inline citations, then I will.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, I favor giving good faith contributors with a history of writing articles a lot of leeway on things like this.
I suggest this DrV be closed as nothing prohibits the creation of a good a valid article by someone with a COI. I have to say Guy closed the DrV in a reasonable way so endorse. But I also can't imagine why we wouldn't allow the recreation of the article if quality sources exist, so allow recreation and unprotect. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC) !vote updated as I missed the fact this was protected... Hobit (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3, but unprotect to allow recreation by a good-faith user. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Except for the reasons I mentioned in the previous DRV, there is one more thing: Hucko is gradually turning slovio.com into a hate site against myself and my project, Slovianski (it contains not only information that is deliberately false, but also private things like my home address). It is clear that Hucko has chosen Wikipedia as a target for promoting Slovio. Recent edits made from his IP make me very suspicious - even afraid. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (but allow recreation by a good-faith user) - I don't know why there was so much admin tolerance for the vile that was in the original DRV post[1] and hurtful statements added back into the nom.[2] The nominator was blinded by a single purpose and was using that DRV as a soapbox to trample on Wikipedia's civil, etc. policies. The DRV page even was blanked as a courtesy after the close. The targets of the animosity rightly felt a FOAD was appropriate, but restrained themselves as well. Allow recreation by a good-faith user. However, there's plenty of things to do on Wikipedia, why spend that energy creating another potential Wikipedia soapbox to mirror the slovio.com hate site targeting long term Wikipedia contributors? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'd even agree. But there's one issue: there are sources, alright, but sources do not only have to prove notability, they also need to provide some actual information. And the sad thing is, the people who wrote these articles apparently found Slovio notable enough to write about, but not notable enough to do some actual research. Thus, they notice for example that Slovio has a newssite, but nobody bothers to actually read it (otherwise they'd have noticed its strongly nationalist and antisemitic tendencies). Instead, they merely reproduce information from slovio.com and/or wikipedia. None of the 26 language versions of the Slovio article contains any inline quotations: it looks like most of them were translations from the (now deleted) English version, on other words: one big pile of OR. The only primary source is slovio.com, which has now pretty much devolved into a hate site (which in its current state ought to be blacklisted, if you ask me). Even if the notability issue is solved, the verifiability and NPOV issues remain. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse DRV close, encourage attempt to build an article compliant with Wikipedia's mission and policies. Given the issues on COI, personal attacks, and some concern about the degree of verifiable and meaningful information vs OR etc., it is pragmatically probably better to keep out of article space now (i.e., keep protected for now) to avoid unnecessary drama. Suggestion: S Marshall should be encouraged and aided by interested, well-established and Wikipedia-conversant editors to incubate a version in user space. People with a vested interest or strong point of view should not edit the article being incubated directly, but only comment on the talk page. Once S Marshall and/or other impartial editors feel they have an article that stands up to scrutiny, they could either bring it back to DRV if they feel there is likely to be debate about whether it meets the bar, or with the help of an admin move it to article space if there seems to be consensus even from the doubters that the necessary bar has been met. (By the latter I mean - if it becomes pretty clear that we have a good new Wikipedia article that addresses previous concerns, there is no need for further process wonkery. If it's going to go straight to AFD/DRV anyway, might as well have the discussion right here right away. If you judge wrong, a trout slap for wasting the community's time but no harm done.) Martinp (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|