WP:G12applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. <blockquote>...</blockquote> preceded by an attribution to the original writer and a citation to the quote source clearly constitutes a credible assertion of fair use. And even if there was copyright violation, I'd have a serious hard time understanding why the rest of the article (i.e. everything in this version except the "Production" section), which had 867 words of prose and 17 sources, must be deemed not worth saving. Nardog (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G12 as after running Earwig's tool on it, everything seems to be cited appropriately to the refs in the current version. Not sure what happened here, but it looks like a deleting admin mistake, combined with a hesitancy to say "oops", and a nominator who's pretty hot about it. Anthony Bradbury, feel free to explain here, in a way that you don't appear to have done yet at your talk page, if there's something else copyvio-ish that we can't see as non-admins. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think non-admins can weigh in on this. They would have to go by me and admins' descriptions of the deleted version, which would not be neutral. Nardog (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do it all the time, although having the deleted revision restored for evaluation would be a helpful thing, it's often not done in cases of copyvio, so if another admin looked at the deleted rev, came to the conclusion that there was, in fact, no copyvio, he or she could restore it. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appeared to me to be a fairly straightforward G12 deletion. It is not, I feel, important enough to spend more than the already time it has taken up. I therefore will restore forthwith the original version; if I was wrong, which is entirely possible - I am only human - then so be it. If it looks to another admin that G12 applies then, again so be it. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Looking at the deleted rev myself, I agree that those are some pretty long quotes that maybe should never have been used in the first place. Furthermore, the citation should probably have been at the end of the block quote, for visual connection with the citation, but I note that that's not even recommended by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. I agree that the large quotes should have been paraphrased, but I don't know that G12 was the best tool to resolve the overlong quotations. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close? Seems to be resolved; page has been restored; and G12 does not seem to currently apply (although the wisdom of giving long quotes is questionable, if it can be avoided/paraphrased instead, but it is not a copyvio in its current state). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:PermaLink/1050870898, which the deleting admin just restored. We don't leave copyvio in history for obvious reasons so I don't see how "not a copyvio in its current state" is a reason for speedy close. Nardog (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That can be dealt with using revdel (a regular admin action) and does not require DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with a revdel (oversight is unnecessary) of the versions with the full long quotes. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. He restored it for evaluation for this very DRV. The question isn't whether the revisions should be kept, but whether G12 applied (past tense) to them. Nardog (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and my conclusion is that those were some LONG blockquotes, so whether or not the G12 was necessary or the best approach, they did have to go as excessive use of copyrighted material. Once everyone is done reviewing them here, they should be REVDEL'ed again, because we won't need them any longer. If you're looking for vindication that the G12 was wrong... well, I'm still of the opinion that it was unwarranted, but it's not as clear-cut a case as I was thinking it was likely to have been based on the article in its current state. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at it, I agree it's long. I was tired after spending hours on the article (it's the research, not the writing, that's arduous) and I got lazy. But I wouldn't call it "unambiguous copyright infringement", let alone "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". One could have (and should have, IMO) blanked the section and revdeled it. As I said the deleting admin's talk, my concern isn't that he deleted it, but that he maintains it was "within policy", which indicates he would do it again if he encountered an article with the same amount of sourced content but with the same proportion of quotation. If the creator was a newcomer, they wouldn't know to argue for revdel and it would crush their motivation to keep contributing. That would be a net loss for the project. Nardog (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can spend a lot of time and energy trying to get someone to apologize when they're not inclined to. I think he's made his position clear. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I think this is ready for close and there's nothing more for DRV to do here, except maybe for an admin to re-REVDEL the revisions with the long blockquotes that we're agreed should be paraphrased. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2021 Erste Bank Open – Overturn to keep, as noted below the article was already restored so nothing to do beyond bookkeeping Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am taking this draftification to DRV for 3 reasons. Firstly, the AFD should have been closed as either Keep or No consensus, I presented reliable sources covering the event at the AFD, which were not seriously challenged by later Draftify !voters; Closing as Draftify looks more like counting !votes than assessing consensus to me. Secondly, the basis for draftification (WP:TOOSOON) no longer applies as the qualifying portion has already started and the main event starts tomorrow [1]. Finally, an attempt to improve the draft and move it back to mainspace has already been moved back to draftspace on the basis that this AFD is still controlling; I don't want to start a move war over this. Iffy★Chat -- 09:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Nominated on grounds of WP:TOOSOON and lack of sourcing. Sources were found and not contested, and TOOSOON was also contested. All three keep voters provided reasoning while one of the three delete/draftify votes was simply "per nom", while another simply repeated "TOOSOON" and added WP:CRYSTAL, but offered no explanation as to why these guidelines apply. Given "keep" has the most votes, and the poor quality of the deletion and draftify arguments, I think this was a bad close and should be overturned to keep. NemesisAT (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow mainspacing and note that there is no minimum time frame between draftifying and restoration. In fact, there are plenty of events nominated as TOOSOON where a simple nose-count on the basis of the article as it existed at the time of nomination might yield a deletion or draftify, but in the interim 7 to 21 days, RS may have been published, and, highlighted in the AfD or not, not affected the outcome. The bar for mainspacing isn't improvement vs. the time of draftify/deletion, but vs. time of nomination unless there's very clear circumstances showing that post-AfD-nomination sources were thoroughly considered in the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the draftification, and allow submission for review at any time. That's how draft space works with too soon stuff. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep The arguments for deletion/draftifying were all essentially WP:VAGUEWAVE; or one assertion that there was "no significant coverage" (despite sources having been presented in the AfD itself). I do not see how this could have been closed as "delete" or even "no consensus" with such weak arguments. A reasonable closer, usually, disregards arguments which have little basis in policy, or merely point at one without explaining why (I'll note, as an example of why merely pointing at TOOSOON is not convincing, that a possible counter-argument would have been "this is in only one week's time, and there is already coverage about it"). A reasonable close, one which would be a "reasonable summation of the discussion" (as opposed to a mere headcount), would have found consensus to keep here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No evidence was presented at the time of the AFD to counter the nom's assertion that no sourcing existed, so at that time the consensus was that it was clearly too soon. Presumably now, with the tournament about to start, that's all a bit moot, as coverage will no doubt appear and the article will be restored. But the AFD and the close were sound. I suggest we move on as this has a slightly pointless feel to it. — Amakuru (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: You've obviously missed Keep has received significant coverage in e.g. Die Presse [1], Kleine Zeitung [2], Tiroler Tageszeitung [3]. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, and I actually even noticed I'd made that mistake shortly after posting and penned a retraction, but forgot to save it. I think consider me an overturn to keep, given that the initial premise of the AFD was faulty, even when it was filed. And doubly so now given that the tournament is about to get underway. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I don't see a delete consensus in the discussion. And some of the delete justifications revolve about WP:CRYSTAL - even if that was a valid reason a month ago, the tournament starts today. The nominator noted there was no significant coverage - a month ago; this is no longer true today. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep. The Delete comments didn't address specifics, except for "no references except for the official website", which was refuted by providing other sources. The WP:CRYSTAL argument is very dubious, the article isn't making any sort of prediction. Hut 8.5 07:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy allow mainspacing, regardless of any issues in the AfD, the concerns expressed there clearly do not apply anymore and any new concerns should be litigated in a new AfD. JumpytooTalk 02:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has already been restored to mainspace. Might be best to just close this discussion at this point to avoid wasting any more of people's time. Smartyllama (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on points 1 & 2. Point 3 is interesting, I think the AfD closer should have been invited to a discussion on re-mainspacing, but it is hard to examine this question given point 1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.