Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18

Kingman Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted without proper consensus Skirts⁸⁹ 15:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist There was no consensus so I would like to relist this entry so we can get some more constructive discussion. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close-- Where did you discuss this with the sysop who deleted it? Anyways, that was sheer speediable spam and it was deleted, accordingly. ∯WBG^converse 15:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Nick deleted page despite consensus in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox. Page is my sandbox that I am using to work on an article. User:RhinosF1 said I violated copyvio. Red marquis (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Advised at MfD, you can't copy text exactly in to Wikipedia. That makes it a copyvio. Did you get the offline editor working? RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'm still challenging the decision, which strikes me as unilaterally done and, as User:Alfie pointed out, what I did was nowhere near as egregiously harmful as made out to be. -Red marquis (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long look at the page to see if there was any alternative to deletion and couldn't see any alternative, but I've asked a couple of my fellow administrators for a second opinion, to see if there's any way we can remove the offending material and restore your sandbox. I think such a possibility is remote, so don't get your hopes up, but we will do what we can do. As I said elsewhere, we take no pleasure in deleting material being used to write high quality encyclopedic content, particularly for technical reasons such as copyright issues. Nick (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I have to agree, deleting as a copyvio is not something we want to see. Especially when it's obvious you put hard work into it. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Copyright violations are copyright violations, and can be deleted unilaterally and whether egregious or not. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I took a look at the deleted User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox page and compared that to https://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Dead_to_the_World_(tour). There's no doubt that it's a copy. Whole paragraphs are virtually word-for-word identical, and looking at the history logs, their page predates ours. The next question is whether that material is copyrighted. I found their copyright statement. I'm not an expert on copyright law and licenses, but it looks to me like it's compatable with ours, so I'm thinking WP:G12 may not apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Manson wiki was not one of the 8 URLs I requested a copyright review for violations of due to their copyright policy and the fact users ponited out they may have copied from wikipedia instead of the other way round. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the full history. Could you post that list of 8 URLs here. I'd be happy to look at those too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out at the MfD, Earwig's copyvio tool indicated an issue with a single Desert News source, which could have been easily removed. had already been removed by Oshwah. The other 7 sources listed were in the 30% range (copyvio unlikely). Further examination revealed those 7 sources to have been flagged primarily as a result of brief direct quotations, which isn't copyvio according to policy. The fact that the sandbox was deleted before the copyvio team even had a chance to investigate it and against consensus is a massive red flag for me, especially when the legitimacy of the copyvio claim regarding those 7 other sources had already been questioned. Homqeostasis07 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2019_February_12 for the list all were in Earwig's Red Range as 'Violation Likely' not in the 30% range as claimed above. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked during the MfD, and the Desert News source was the only one in the red range. Everything else was triggered by either random sentence fragments, album, song and other associated titles, or bits of direct quotes, none of which could be claimed as copyvio. A review by the copyvio team would've confirmed this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow the admin team to review this. Nick obviously believed this but I'll let other admins decide. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Nick’s explanation on his talk. There was simply too much to sort through to make revdel and individual excision feasible, making wholesale deletion the only option. Whether it’s G12 or IAR “This is the only way to get an outcome clearly needed under policy”, the end result was necessary, and is not subject to consensus at XfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one genuine copyvio source had already been excised prior to deletion. Any other alleged instances are disputed. Meaning that the overriding issue here is that the draft was deleted prior to a review by the copyvio team being completed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Nick. Blatant G12 violations cannot be overturned at a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no confirmed G12 violation at the time of this sandbox's deletion. If you're intent on basing your endorsement of this deletion on a response left by an involved user on their own talk page, then I feel as though I have no choice but to recreate the draft on one of my own sandboxes—with the sole confirmed copyvio removed, of course. We could then discuss the veracity of each individual copyvio claim, step by step, as needed, since no-one here has given any regard to the competence of the copyvio team by allowing them sufficient time to respond to the disputed, unconfirmed claims of copyright violation. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My brain hurts. I'm having a really hard time tracing the history of this. It looks like somebody has undeleted the page and moved it back into mainspace. Right now, if I go to Dead to the World Tour, I see a history of 1210 revisions that goes back to June 2007, but I don't see the actual move in the logs. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create Dead to the World Tour, I'm simply expanding on it. I used my sandbox (the one in question here) to work on it. -Red marquis (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] is what you want. Nick (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait, there's two copies of this, with overlapping timelines? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are two copies - the live copy and the sandbox (and I've no idea if there are additional issues with cross-attribution being absent). There's also another slew of copyright issues at User:Red marquis/sandbox including a recreation of another G12'd sandbox (User:Red marquis/sandbox/Mechanical Animals Tour sandbox) which I'll need to leave another group of uninvolved editors to investigate. Nick (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick What copyright issues? I reused User:Red marquis/sandbox/Mechanical Animals Tour sandbox but have different material. None of which were what was tagged as copyvio. Don't tell me I'm suddenly prohibited from ever using that sandbox again? -Red marquis (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - User:Red marquis was blocked in 2008 for repeated copyvios https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARed+marquis and apart from 2011 has made few edits since until the last few months. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RhinosF1 I don't even remember that block... I checked my archives, apparently it was for uploading factory-produced pictures of a car before I even knew about Wikipedia's rules on that matter. But if you feel the need to bring up something from more than a decade ago to establish, I don't know, some imagined behavioral pattern, be my guest. -Red marquis (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to do with image policy, I don't care then as I find that confusing. I just thought it was best admins had a full picture. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: User talk:Red marquis/Archive 1#Blocked -Red marquis (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A full picture for what? The link you provided did not even provide said full picture as it did not mention what I was blocked for (which has nothing to do with what is being disputed here). I hope you're not taking me challenging the deletion personally. -Red marquis (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking it. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of Red marquis previous difficulties in understanding our copyright policies, this is useful to know. I also note that their current ongoing difficulties with our copyright policies has manifested itself in another sandbox being deleted, unfortunately. I would suggest it may be sensible for Red marquis to be mentored or gain assistance from an editor experienced with copyright policy before they generate additional content. It's really not good to see so much of their effort being deleted when a more nuanced approach may allow their work to be retained. Nick (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think these experiences have been instructive enough but I'll be happy to learn. -Red marquis (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will put on record that I disagree with Nick's characterisation of a 10-year-old incident. The user did not have "difficulties […] understanding" copyright policy. The user was brand-new to Wikipedia, lacking an expert knowledge of our policy, uploading before the File Upload Wizard, uploading before they appeared to know what a talk page was, and uploading when our guidance to uploaders was unusable. (Indeed, unsuable the guidance still is – why do we still bury the warning in "Steps for adding an image"?) This decision to delete needs judging on its merits and does well enough without lazy argumentation of that sort. AGK ■ 22:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been taking a gander at this and I am currently looking at if Red marquis cut and pasted a copy of what was the current mainspace article to a userspace sandbox to perform some trial edits with the intention of cut and pasting improvements back into mainspace; which is a valid editing technique. I am further assuming that the (potential) copyright issues existed in the article previously and that new edits in the sandbox did not introduce further issues. So I am wondering if the issues are mainly with existing mainspace articles rather than his sandbox copies? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. I recreated the article in my sand box so that I can expand upon it. The mainspace article was effectively a stub with a few paragraphs on it before I started working on it. I've been hearing about some issues related to material on the mainspace article that was a word per word match with a similar article in Mansonwiki. I took a look at it and it looks like they copied it from Wikipedia. The material copied though had nothing to do with me (I didn't write it). In fact I've been actively trying to cut out that portion (the part about the stage show/stage design) by rewriting it and folding it into my own work. -Red marquis (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at this I'm uncomfortable with both endorse and overturn (action do nothing or ...). As far as I can tell most things flagged as copy violations were quotes ... with possible overuse per WP:QUOTE not helping and the offensive nature of the quoted material not helping and identical text pieces with MansonWiki not helping. Red marquis did a little mainspace article editing on the article in April 2018 when it was about 20K bytes and restarted on 30 December 2019 bringing it to 60K bytes by early February and up to about 140k bytes during this last week or so. I would suggest most of the what was in the sandbox content is likely now in the article, possibly with some hard work. Luckily about 60 copies of the sandbox are on an internet archive from 11/12 Feb 2019 - though these would not give reference markup. There is a work around for deleting contentious material and placing it under talk/temp ... in this case simply cut/pasting the mainspace article as a new version of the sandbox keeping the old version underneath should have also cleared the problem without losing content. I'd currently be more concerned about copyright violations in the mainspace article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards your last point (the mainspace article currently containing potential copyvio), Earwig's tool showed only one potential issue with this source. It would take a smarter person than I to work out if a judge's publicly-disseminated summation statement to a court case can be deemed copyrightable at all, though. I doubt it, but am willing to be corrected. Their Terms were no help, and their Copyright Policy merely links back to their general disclaimer. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto User:Homeostasis07 on the Judge's statement. User:Djm-leighpark with regards to overuse of quotations per WP:QUOTE that can always be trimmed down during peer review process for the mainspace article. It already feels like it's being peer reviewed here. As for the offensive nature of the quoted material, the article talks about the highly contentious concert tour of the rock band Marilyn Manson. They've never been known to be wholesome. In fact their frontman made his name partly by being overtly blasphemous - as noted in the lede. Offensive or not though is no justification. If I remember correctly, Wikipedia is not in the censorship business. I agree with the MansonWiki material but I had nothing to do with that nor do I have any control over what they pilfer from Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, I am not quite done. The topic of the article was a concert tour that lasted for more than a year with a lot of notable occurrences - lots of resistance from political and religious community leaders, etc. I haven't even been able to write up the successful cancellation of the Columbia, SC show before my sandbox got flagged and deleted. A lot of the other sections are also still missing important info. I've only been working on the thing for 1 1/2 months before this all happened. -Red marquis (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red marquis To put it bluntly in a complex cloud of red mist I think I see marginal reasons to overturn and and marginal reasons to endorse but I am far from confident in those deliberations and they might rely on balances of probabilities rather than fact. Pragmatically it is perhaps more important you are able to continue development of your article. Did you create an archive of you sandbox or are you aware of the location of the one in the webarchive? I am minded access to that archive or your own enables you to continue mainstream article development albeit with some degradation and some potential loss of reference markup and avoids others effort needed in organising a recovery.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark I was able to save the last revision to a word document on my PC before the deletion with the intent of using an offline editor to work on it however every single one of those offline editors have been nothing but problematic which makes working on the article too much of a hassle/not worth it. I have a life outside of this too. Working on it in a personal sandbox (which I believe was the intent of Wikipedia sandboxes in the first place) helps me out immensely hence why I am asking for the decision to be overturned. -Red marquis (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:G12. I've come back to this a few times over the past couple of days, and have finally come to the conclusion that the user sandbox page violated our policies around copyright. I'm looking specifically at User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox#Jan_11_Concert_Day (as of 12 February 2019, at 09:56). This looks like a collection of notes taken from various sources, with the intent of eventually distilling them down into original text. More specifically, I'm looking at

tour busses ... and hail

The pretentious prince ... another Book of Mormon.

stage antics ... gothic metal concert.

Manson did, however, ... stood on a monitor speaker.

The stage, ... Michael the archangel.

all of which are direct quotes from Scott Iwasaki (13 January 1997). "PRETENTIOUS MANSON PAYS THE DEVIL HIS DUE". DeseretNews.com. Retrieved 20 February 2019.. Taken outside the context of Wikipedia, this seems like an excellent writing process. Do your research, gather notes and quotes, then start writing your original prose using those notes as guidance. I wish all of our editors put that much effort into their writing. As a matter of copyright law, I'm reasonably sure this is well within the fair use guidelines.

The problem is, we don't just go by copyright law. We hold ourselves to a stricter standard than just complying with US copyright law. The bottom of every page says, Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. That includes not just pages in mainspace, but pages in userspace and user sandboxes. These unattributed notes and quotes are not compatible with that license, so they can't be hosted. I'm sure the intent here was 100% virtuous, but that doesn't change the fact that having this material visible on our servers is contrary to policy. And copyright policy is one of the places were there's very little wiggle room for interpretation.

It sounds like Red marquis has already found a work-around, i.e. editing the text off-line, and then uploading the final, clean, version back to our servers. That's not going to be as convenient as working with it in a user sandbox, but unfortunately, if the workflow is going to include, even transiently, text which cannot be licensed under CCA-SA, there's really no alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith If that's the only issue, it can be removed. I've reworked that particular section anyway. And I've tried to attribute as much quotations and fragments as I could by adding a ref to it. -Red marquis (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only issue that I put in the effort to document at this level of detail. My suspicion is that if I went through more of the page and compared it to more of the sources, I'd find more of these. I'm not willing to put in that amount of effort, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:G12: Endorse: The sandbox version extant at 20190211:1842 snaps with this Desert news indicating a copy paste. Various edits of the sandbox through until the one before it was blanked may have addressed the section in question however a further issue existed with another Desert news article at January 19 with a couple of sentences copied has not been addressed. Section blanking by author or removal of all copy-pasted content may have saved a deletion but it was not in my opinion pragmatically reasonable for admins to do it. Concur with RoySmith comment above. I'd also note a cut/paste of the article from mainspace to sandbox and cut pasting into that from an offline editor should be fine providing very diligent care that no cut-pasted or copied material outside of quotes is brought in; however the style of editing means it is possibly quite easy to end up with a problem. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (uninvolved). I almost reached "Overturn" on the basis that the MfD explicitly discussed the copyright violation issue, and that it was disputed. I hold back because others here assert a blatant copyright violation in the history of the page. Wikipedia is arguably excessively super-cautious in deleting pages due to suspected copyright violation, or copyright violations in the history. Copyright violation is not illegal, it is a mere civil matter that only becomes serious when the copyright owner objects. I argue that it should be OK to leave alleged but disputed copyright violation in a page history while the community discusses it for seven days. Nevertheless, it is community practice to be super-cautious with copyright, and that is a good thing. Moving forwards, is it an option to email the deleted page to User:Red_marquis and allow him to recreate a copyrights-compliant version? Did the page have other authors, meaning that recreation might create new attribution problems? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before emailing, I support requiring User:Red_marquis confirm User:Nick's request "It would be useful if you would both please read our copyright violation policy before undertaking further edits to Wikipedia, so you can both make edits which we don't need to delete (none of us take pleasure in having to delete material in this way). Nick (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Further, I don't see the point of any of this. The MfD nomination also made a strong case that the sandbox is now redundant to Dead to the World Tour. What would be the purpose of re-creation but to re-create forked material? Much better for User:Red_marquis to work with the current mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because, honestly, I'm not done. As much as I've completed I'm only in the initial process of writing the article. I'm still digging around doing research and collecting articles from newspapers all over America around this time period. My intent was to distill all of the information I've researched down to original text in chronological fashion (which when complete would be too massive for mainspace)—and then rewrite it all down to a manageable size for wikipedia and again and again until I refine the article to a point I know it could pass at least GA. Then hopefully FA. -Red marquis (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that: you confirm your respect for Wikipedia:Copyright violations; request an emailed copy of the deleted page; and start fresh with respect to the current mainspace version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I'm going to do that. Do I get a quiz? Write and sign a pledge? Click a EULA? Join a secret society hazing ritual? -Red marquis (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a quiz. Here’s a question: Generally, what is the maximum quote size that is considered fair use? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - Page was recreated without approval. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another that had been previously CSD'ed RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1 ... I don't think approval is needed to re-create the page. And I think you were involved in the CSD. I wish I had time to expand on this however I am wish you would state your exact involvements in this. I understand from deleted logs the deleted page breached copyright and if so I am perfectly happy with that. But I really would like open disclosure and evidence of what is going on and your entries at DRV and MfD may be disingenious compared to actions. Thankyou.20:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not simply "recreated", but recreated with the alleged copyvio removed. Without providing evidence that the recreation contained additional copyvio not yet referred to here before you deleted it, I'm afraid you're veering precariously close to harassment at this point, Rhino. Suggest you take a step back from this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1 So what did I copyvio now? I followed your rules this time. According to everyone here, I can copy the mainspace article to in my sadnbox so I can work on it. I brought back NONE of the contentious material. You just don't like that I thumbed my nose did you (and possibly, yeah, you don't like the subject matter)? Sorry, but you and your little ELITIST club of admins can close your ranks all you like I AM NOT GOING TO KISS THE RING. As far as the NEW material you just deleted. That was all from the mainspace. That means, IT VIOLATED SHIT. I'm done with civility. You assholes have gone too far. -Red marquis (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the points separately.

1. By approval, I meant this discussion has not overruled it yet therefore and any duplicate article qualifies for speedy under the appropriate criteria unless restored to allow editors to review it at agreement of the community.

2. It seemed to still have copyvio issues based on an Earwig's scan. The main one I checked was from Https://leagle.com

3. I suggest any aggressive language is removed or struck or separate behavioural investigations may be sought. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that potential issue against leagle may exist in mainspace and should be checked out there. I am doing RL(MOTD2).Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is clearly just circling the drain. The 'leagle' source has already been discussed above. A judge's summation is doubtful copyrightable, so isn't copyvio. Suggest closing this and RhinosF1 just step away from the dynamite (i.e., not delete anymore of Red marquis' sandboxes without consensus). There's obviously something else going on here that the rest of us aren't aware of. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @RhinosF1, as noted in your talk page (but I want it recorded here for posterity) what you're doing can be construed as "following/stalking". Which is especially egregious since, by your own admission, you are NOT an admin. Nor has anyone deputized you. I've already added attributions to other sandboxes you deem violates copying within Wikipedia rules. By all means, you can delete this one now. You people have destroyed and mutilated it enough. However, as also noted in your talk page, I won't hesitate to strike back if you continue to VANDALIZE my sandboxes and HARASS me. You may have gotten used to other users simply lying down and taking the imagined power you lack in the real world but think you have here and exercise with impunity but I AM NOT THAT KIND OF USER. I FIGHT BACK. If you feel the need to continue your harassment, then bring it. -Red marquis (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aprimo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting execution of CSD G6 delete of Aprimo on 05:01 1 February 2019 due to fail to follow procedure for deleting a page with major history for the purpose of mooving in a replacement page. Note reason for deletion given at Special:Log/delete specified reason (G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move, leaving it to taggers to perform the move) My reading of WP:G6 requires for Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves where the blocking page has a non-trivial page history the administrator is to be aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving_procedures. These moving procedures explicitly state a page that has a major history it should never be simply deleted (As was done here). The Show collapsed box for redirects with with major histories give 3 options and I believe the only viable option here is the third one to move the page to be replaced as a subpage of the article talk page. I believe this would remedy the issue. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a number of comments which may give some background:Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This was previously discussed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 but closed inconclusively in my opinion, in particular there being no Endorse or Overturn !Votes in that discussion and I had discussion with the closer and the only way forward for me is to a further DRV. I bear some responsibility in how that discussion was raised and that discussion was I believe ultimately usefully due to some very helpful inputs which I acknowledge thanks and have used in this resubmission which I hope is more specific.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also suggest the G6 request was not uncontroversial given the AfC request over a redirect with major history with apparently no audited reasoning of why either a cut and paste or a direction to the submitting author to do a request edit over the existing redirect.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I request a temporary undelete of the page. However while I do wish to examine the page and history I cannot justify it as necessary for the this DRV unless something arises.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe there are 3 pragmatically possible !votes here, but I also am open to other viewpoints/amendments. Endorse implies my interpretation of G6 is invalid and additionally the request was uncontroversial, Overturn with no further action would imply the decision not to restore the history was incorrect however there is no benefit to do the restore here; Overturn with Action to restore the page as a subpage of talk is my suggestion as Original Poster.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, how's this for a bolded vote: No administrator has been willing to restore those revisions, and continuing to agitate against everybody telling you why it's a bad idea will not end well. —Cryptic 19:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]