Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 15

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A New Draft was created to address issues regarding verifiability and notability. Requesting undeletion. Exukvera (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Allow Review of Draft, as in no action required from DRV. The deleted article had no references, as I noted in the nomination. The title was not salted and the draft can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Will the review process take long? Exukvera (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Typically between one and two weeks.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Interpret the request as a request for History Merge of Avataro Sentai Donbrothers onto Draft:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers. I suggest doing this. It will allow easy checking for whether the new draft overcomes the reasons for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avataro Sentai Donbrothers. Based on some comments at the AfD, this is plausible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The history has already been mangled enough, thank you, no. —Cryptic 04:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article cited eleven sources at deletion. Five weren't independent, two seem trivial, and there's two print sources I don't have access to. This and this, though, were enough to invalidate the delete comments, all of which either claimed the article was completely unreferenced or made no actionable argument for deletion at all. I'm no fan of relisting afds, but that's what was called for here, not a delete close on strength of argument. Overturn; start a new afd if someone wants; don't just relist the old one as-is, since it contains no usable arguments either way. —Cryptic 04:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Cryptic - Are you saying that eleven sources were added between the time of nomination and the time that the AFD was closed? If so, why didn't the originator at least state that the sources were added and request a Relist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Probably because they're better at creating content than dealing with backoffice wikipolitics. A better question is, how come the afd nominator didn't watchlist the article? —Cryptic 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Was the same editor editing mainspace and draftspace at the same time?
  I Endorse the "Delete" close of the AfD, I read it as a consensus to delete, at best call it WP:TNT. Advise Exukvera (talk · contribs) to try moving forward with the draft, and require submission through AfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • • User:SmokeyJoe - Editing in mainspace and in draft space at the same time is more common than it should be. It may be done either out of ignorance, or to confuse the jury (that is, confuse the editors in the AFD), and it makes history merge nearly impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Someone created the article while the draft was being cooked. The article had few to none material which prompted an AfD. We tried to put the draft content into the main article but the discussion was closed and the article deleted. I even attempted to move the draft to the main article, but this led to both being deleted and we had start the draft from zero (Exukvera (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC))

  You seem to be indicating that there was nothing additional in the forked mainspace page. Why are you asking for undeletion? It will not be undeleted into mainspace. What are you asking for? What do you want? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I tried to move the new upgraded draft to main article and someone deleted claiming that it was previously deleted via AfD and only could be reverted with a DRV(Exukvera (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC))

  Who told you that? Please link.

  I am now guessing that this DRV is a challenge to the most recent G4 by User:Explicit?

  It is barely a month since the AfD consensus to delete, and there’s a history of re-creations in the meantime. I believe that the AfD consensus should be respected for at least 6 months, and that if you are not patient for that, then make a draft and submit through AfC to see if an AfC reviewer agrees with you. Alternatively, make a case on the draft talk page that the AfD reasons for deletion have been overcome (I note that Draft talk:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers is a redlink. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's nutty. We tell people they don't have to come to DRV for permission to recreate articles if they think they've overcome the reasons for deletion. Well, the reasons given for deletion were that the article was totally unreferenced (about half), nonsensical (the other half), and that the series didn't meet WP:NTV, which most such articles do when a series enters preproduction (about half, overlapping the first two categories). Well, it was referenced even during the AFD, the recreation that was G4'd was referenced, and now it's not only entered preproduction but actually premiered. And you say to come back in six months? Feh. —Cryptic 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  "We tell people they don't have to come to DRV for permission to recreate articles if they think they've overcome the reasons for deletion". Yes, if they are sure, and the AfD is old, but here the AfD is a month old, and the editor claimed to have overcome the reasons, but when asked for evidence they were evasive / non co-operative, I quite agree with Sandstein reading the editor as wasting their time.

  As a rule of thumb, I have long suggest that an AfD consensus should default to be respected for six months. If you want to challenge under six months, the onus is on you to present a case, not "there are new sources" (vague claim); "And these new sources are? Sandstein 05:55, 10 March 2022"; <non-answer>. But this is old; below User:Exukvera has given three sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Exukvera, when you say “We tried to put the draft content into the main article” that is also part of the problem because you provided no attribution to where you copied the material from. At least part of the point of the AfD was to allow the draft to cook further, as you put it. -2pou (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can we get a temp undelete, please? Cryptic's comments suggest that it's needed. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• The new draft has additional sources. Maybe someone could review it before deciding the best course of action (Exukvera (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC))

  Your DRV nomination here is confusing and complicating things. I suggest doing nothing on the topic until this is resolved. I can't work out what you want, and guessing is likely to be counter-productive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I want to move the draft to the main article without risk of being deleted despite having passed the guidelines. I talked with lots of people. Some say "try for DRV", other say "its a case of TNT and start again", others say "merge". (Exukvera (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC))

  Where’s the evidence that it passes what guideline?

  Who said “merge”, and to what? Please link to that discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see your discussion at User talk:Sandstein#Avataro Sentai Donbrothers. I agree with Sandstein. I see that he asked simple questions and you did not give direct answers. Read the advice at WP:THREE and answer at Draft talk:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers.

  I see that the draft has 14 references. I don’t want to review all 14. You say which are the best three for meeting the WP:GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe this, this and this one. They are in japanese, but are from the official media, no promotional material, no fanbase sites and you can read without much difficulty with google translator. (Exukvera (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC))

  I will need time to review these.

  Is there a Japanese language Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  ja:暴太郎戦隊ドンブラザーズ. —Cryptic 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Mainspace the draft. The three proffered sources look good. Sources in the draft look good, and clearly are much better that were in the page that was AfD-ed. The Japanese article looks good. The TV drama is now being broadcast (since March 6, 2022), which was not the case during the AfD. The reasons for deletion at the AfD are overcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I second that. So far I've seen no questions about the quality of the current draft, but about the procedures regarding the past deletion and eventual reinstatement of the article instead. (Exukvera (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC))

• For the record, symbolic "Overturn the AfD" on the basis that AfD participants did not notice that the reasons for deletion were overcome during the discussion, by Exukvera on 9 February 2022‎. Advice User:Exukvera in future to mention in the AfD that they have just massively improved the article with good references. No one knew. I can't fault the closer, it's not usually expected that they check the history, and I can't fault the CSD#G4 tagger or deleter, because the improvements were made pre-deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Leave the deleted page deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  The improvement made on 9 Feb that is referred to is the second unattributed copy/paste move that happened in this history. This diff looks like a significant improvement until compared further back where it is a small tweak to the draft content: here. -2pou (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD, allow recreation I remember seeing this AfD but did not comment on it. This was the article that was AfDed. It's clear when you compare the article at AfD and the current version that was G4'ed that they are significantly different. In addition the series has now aired when it had not yet aired during the course of the AfD. The AfD itself was not flawed, but the show is now notable as it has officially aired. Jumpytoo Talk 06:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  You should look more carefully. This is the page that was deleted at the end of the AfD. It is NOT what the participants were !voting on. There is a small process failure that has occurred here that might be fixable. Perhaps an indicator in the AfD about recent additions to the page being discussed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  In my eyes, the larger problem with the version deleted at AfD was that it basically blew away the attribution history of the draft, where other editors had done the majority of the work at first. The improvements made to the article since the nomination were copied from the draft with no attribution per WP:ATTREQ. You will see a history merge request in the history that basically got lost in the mix. Then continued improvements were made in main space. The current history looks like it has shuffled the draft and the copy/paste move together… I guess history attribution is now restored? Heh. -2pou (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)That's the version that was nominated, and yes, it was pretty poor. I might have nominated it too, if I didn't know how mindbogglingly huge Super Sentai is. (Srsly - if anyone isn't familiar with it, go read that article, and keep in mind that if anything it's understated - this is a multi-billion dollar franchise.) But for two and a half days - more than a third of the afd's duration - it looked like this (initial expansion) to this (final version at deletion). We don't normally ask afd closers to read sources or get involved with the content. But if they're already explicitly closing on strength of argument, as Sandstein did here, I expect at least a minimal sanity check that the arguments they're siding with are correct. "It has no references" would have taken all of ten seconds to disprove. Unless someone wants to argue that "The article is now nothing more than a den of vandalism" or "There's almost nothing left on the page" or "The subject matter will be notable enough for inclusion within a month" have ever been reason to delete an article? —Cryptic 07:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    Strike “almost nothing left on the page” and I still stand by that delete !vote. The crux of that argument was not the content that was left, but for the unattributed copy paste move that happened twice. Copy/paste #1 And copy/paste #2 disguised as an initial expansion post AfD nom. -2pou (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    Misattribution isn't a problem that calls for deletion, either. —Cryptic 21:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think we are missing the point here. The article was deleted under allegations of lack of sources, but was improved even before deletion. Now a new draft is ready which according to some reviewers, is in compliance with the WP:THREE rule. Is there any other issue left that can prevent the article from being undeleted? (Exukvera (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC))

  No, we're not missing that at all. I think we all get it. We're into the weeds of how best to bring the disputed content back into mainspace. There are competing versions that could be restored and challenges with how to give the creators proper credit after copy/paste moves. These are resolvable problems but they do need resolving because of our terms of use. In this case it looks to me as if it isn't needful to perform a history merge.—S Marshall T/C 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  There is not much difference between what was in the article before deleting and the current draft (further corrections can be done once the article is restored). In addition there will be two extra articles (an episode list and a list of characters) but both can only be created after the deletion issue is solved. (Exukvera (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC))

• The draft was already expanded to 32 sources and is way bigger than the article that was deleted. Can't we have a temporary undeletion until a consensus is reached? (Exukvera (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC))
• Overturn the AFD, finalize the draft, and expand the article from the Japanese Wikipedia entry. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 05:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  The draft is ready, just waiting for the AfD to be revoked. Most of the info left on the Japanese entry is irrelevant to the english version like the specs of the robots and monsters or a list of the Japanese local stations where the show airs. (Exukvera (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC))

  The draft isn't strictly ready. The problem with it is that we've steamed ahead writing a full draft without waiting for the DRV to be closed -- so there are parallel versions of the article. One's in the now-deleted history and the other one's at the draft page. This means one of our sysops is going to have to carry out a (potentially) laborious and painstaking procedure to make sure all the contributors get the credit they're due for their contributions (which is required by the Terms of Use). I expect this is why nobody has volunteered to close it yet.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  But the longer they wait for it, more difficult it will be, as new content is added with each new episode and each new info from official sources. We could trim down the work a little by moving the List of Characters and List of Episodes to separate pages. It will happen sooner or later, but I don't know if doing it now will only make things worse for them. (Exukvera (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC))