- Saleem Technologies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Decide whether to allow re-creation by moving Draft:Saleem (Company) into the main encyclopedia. If re-creation is allowed decide if it is better to leave the deleted article deleted, merge the history with the new draft, or undelete the article and decline the draft as a duplicate of an existing submission. If the answer is "do not allow re-creation based on the existing draft" then specify if any future re-creation needs to go through DRV or if going through a formal review process such as AFC is sufficient. Consider this request a procedural one not a recommendation for or against overturning the previous decision nor is this a claim that the current draft would be acceptable at AFC in its current state. To facilitate decision-making, I am requesting temporary undeletion to Draft:Saleem (Company) (deleted version). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- require review either at DR or AFC. As the reviewer has already indicated that they would like to take it through the AFC system (over the same IRC discussion when he asked me to move it to draft), this seems a good solution that will be followed. Personally, a histmerge will be appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a cookie cutter spam article, and the sourcing is rather thin with at best a single mainstream source focused on this company. As such, I don't think that this would survive a speedy deletion nomination, much less a proper AfC process. I note that the editor behind this AfC has been producing similar cookie cutter spam articles, so it's likely that this is some form of undisclosed paid editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but Permit Recreation via AFC. Clearly no problem with the deletion (disclosure: it was my preferred outcome). That said, if a suitable article can be presented at AFC illustrating the company's notability and absent of unduly promotional language, I see no reason why it can't be taken care of through that process. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Question - Should Draft:Saleem (Company) be deleted as an attempted recreation of a previously deleted article - or should it be reviewed at AFC? It was "put in limbo" pending this process but I'm not seeing any definitive guidance here. (Please ping me when replying to this question.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#G4 mentions that it doesn't apply to content that was "moved to userspace" to be improved. Although the precise wording has not be updated since the introduction of Draft-space, I strongly feel the spirit of the criterion applies to content moved or recreated to Draftspace for improvement. I would not G4 a Draft. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and Allow drafting + AfC review, and allow recreation if approved at AfC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- History-merge deleted page into current draft so that content from older "versions" can be easily content-merged into the current draft. Deleted page is already a history-merge of two non-overlapping versions by different authors. Disallow (re-)creation of any article-space page on this topic unless it goes through an AFC or a similar formal review process, but allow it after an AFC review without returning to deletion-review. Make entries in deletion logs to point to this discussion. Note: I opened this DRV. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|