Talk:Vintage Real Estate/Archives/2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Vintage Real Estate. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Repost
I can't see the deleted version of this page, but the {hangon} notice is incorrect; this was not deleted for copyright violation, it was deleted as G11 after discussion at AFD; G11 is for spam, not copyvio. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Real Estate. Hairhorn (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not correct - speedy deletions by definition take place without discussion, and thus anything speedily deleted is not a candidate for G4, which requires a deletion discussion to have ended in a consensus of delete. WilyD 12:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Check the logs, please, this was deleted through AFD. Not all AFDs end with a simple "delete" or "keep", speedy deletion is also an option (as are "merge", "redirect", etc). It's a bit farcical to say that there was "by definition" no discussion, because all you have to do is click the AFD link to read the discussion that took place... there goes your definition. G4 says that the previous entry should have been deleted "via a deletion discussion', which is what happened in this case. Hairhorn (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the deleting admin, so I'll weigh in here. The speedy deletion happened less than an hour after the AfD nom. I really can't say I feel comfortable saying this was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion -- one editor suggested G11, I agreed and speedied it, then closed the discussion as there was no point in discussing a deleted article. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to grant this is a borderline case, G4 is pretty clear, but has no extra guidelines about this sort of situation. I'm just not willing to grant that there was "by definition no discussion". The logs are pretty clear. I think what's most relevant is similarity to the deleted version, but that wasn't checked either when the speedy was declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm playing by the book, but the article wasn't deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, but because Fabrictramp felt it met the G11 criterion. Opening a new deletion discussion only takes a minute, if you feel it needs to be deleted. Apart from that, in it's current form, it's not substantially identical to the deleted article, particularly because it now includes four plausibly worthwhile references (not investigating them, just a cursory inspection), so G4 isn't useable in that case either. (Certainly the current version isn't particularly promotional, whether or not it's notable.) WilyD 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- LIke a lot of disputes, this one involves different readings of the same rule. The logs clearly state that this page was deleted as the result of an AFD, the fact that it happened to be speedied as well is immaterial. But I'm happy to let it rest, the article has improved quite a bit since I placed the db-repost tag. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm playing by the book, but the article wasn't deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, but because Fabrictramp felt it met the G11 criterion. Opening a new deletion discussion only takes a minute, if you feel it needs to be deleted. Apart from that, in it's current form, it's not substantially identical to the deleted article, particularly because it now includes four plausibly worthwhile references (not investigating them, just a cursory inspection), so G4 isn't useable in that case either. (Certainly the current version isn't particularly promotional, whether or not it's notable.) WilyD 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to grant this is a borderline case, G4 is pretty clear, but has no extra guidelines about this sort of situation. I'm just not willing to grant that there was "by definition no discussion". The logs are pretty clear. I think what's most relevant is similarity to the deleted version, but that wasn't checked either when the speedy was declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the deleting admin, so I'll weigh in here. The speedy deletion happened less than an hour after the AfD nom. I really can't say I feel comfortable saying this was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion -- one editor suggested G11, I agreed and speedied it, then closed the discussion as there was no point in discussing a deleted article. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)