Draft:Sapna Choudhary – Speedily overturned because all the conditions of the second limb of "Speedy closes", at the foot of the DRV instructions, obtain. The deleting sysop has reversed their decision and restored the disputed content, and every !vote to endorse has been withdrawn. We treat this kind of incident as an honest mistake and a learning opportunity, so it falls to me as closer to apologise on the community's behalf to LearnologyX for having to come here. We're sorry this happened.—S MarshallT/C 13:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The subject Sapna Choudhary · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions] and its AfC have been deleted several times citing WP:G11, whereas the recent AfC submitted by me maintained WP:NPOV and contained nothing that could be considered advertising or promotional. Furthermore, the 2nd AfD discussion was not well-contested, and the 1st AfD discussion, nominated in 2017 for AfD under WP:G11, saw experienced editors voting in favor of deletion, with comments such as WP:TOOSOON. It may be possible that in 2017, the subject was not covered in depth by third-party reliable sources, but now in 2024, it is well-covered in multiple secondary reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Additionally, the subject is already available on different projects of Wikipedia (in Hindi) and five other languages, further making it eligible for WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. LearnologyX (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I haven't seen the G11-deleted draft but I have no doubt that the deleting administrator applied the criterion correctly. [Overturn. After seeing the now temp-undeleted page, I recommend overturning the deletion because the content is not exclusively promotional, so this was not a correct application of G11 after all. The draft can be undeleted to let it keep existing as a draft.] The AfDs don't matter anymore: Reviewing the second AfD can't change the outcome because the content that was deleted is now outdated BLP content that is almost certainly not a good starting point for a new article, so it should not be undeleted, and, therefore, there is no reason to review that AfD. —Alalch E. 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse because, like Alalch E., I haven't seen the deleted draft, but I have reason to trust the judgment of an administrator, and less reason to think that a new editor knows what is considered advertising or promotional by Wikipedia. I will comment that I have known editors who were new to Wikipedia but experienced journalists who had a different idea of neutral point of view and of promotional content than experienced Wikipedia editors. They may have learned, as journalists, to make the subject interesting to the reader, rather than to make the subject boring and encyclopedic. An appeal of a G11 is a difficult case at DRV. When is a draft too promotional to be allowed to be declined or rejected? I will comment that the AFDs are irrelevant. The AFDs said that two previous articles did not establish notability, and the issue here is not notability but promotional content. The title has not been salted in draft space, and the appellant may create a new draft. If they didn't keep a copy of the deleted draft on their computer, they can always use a wizard to start from scratch. Drafts that were deleted for G11 are difficult cases at DRV, except that an admin is more likely to know what is neutral point of view than a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When a title has been salted in article space with two spellings, we are in the territory where the ultras in the subject's fan club have become part of the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've temp-undeleted the latest G11'd draft...DRV shouldn't be a guessing game! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to see how this could be construed as exclusively promotional. It reads as entirely neutral to me, except some mild and fixable wording in the Career section. It's not suitable for mainspace, and the refs I looked at were all useless promotional pap, but I'd never have speedied it. (And the G4 tag was of course complete nonsense.) —Cryptic 22:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11. This may still fail AfC/AfD per NBIO, but I don't see anything promotional in how the draft is written. Owen×☎ 00:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and restore as declined draft. (I think that the rejection of the draft was harsh.) There is nothing in the draft that supports any claim of notability, but it's a draft. There is also nothing, or almost nothing, in the draft that is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Cryptic - I respectfully disagree about the G4 tagging. The tagging was not complete nonsense. It was a relatively common good-faith misunderstanding of G4 and namespaces. The title had been deleted twice from article space after deletion discussions. That would be a valid G4 in article space. It isn't a reason to delete a draft, but I have seen that error from time to time. It was not complete nonsense, only wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The G4 tagger has been here 8 years. G4 doesn't apply in draft, it's a pretty prominent part of G4. The tagging was entirely inappropriate, even if the "complete nonsense" appelation might be perceived as hyperbolic. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Jclemens - I respectfully disagree that G4 doesn't apply in draft. It just doesn't apply in the usual situation in draft. G4 is available if a draft has been previously deleted following a discussion at MFD. It just doesn't apply when an article has been deleted following a discussion at AFD. Many experienced editors don't understand the distinction. It is a set-theoretic distinction. This wasn't a case where G4 was applicable to a draft. I have seen rare cases where a draft can be G4'd because there was a previous MFD. The G4 tagging was inappropriate, but I see why the editor made that mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thought. With the specific text It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)., including the note about copying, it's not clear to me that an MfD'ed draft is eligible for G4: reposting content from a deleted draft into a new draft is still copying. But this is clearly an edge case, suitable for a discussion over enjoyable beverages. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Example: An article can be deleted as an outcome of an AfD in which consensus formed that it is a copyright violation (and it was not unambigous enough of a copyright infringement, not easily discernible enough, for G12 to work; let's hypothesize that G12 had never been sought in the first place). If someone was to recreate that same page as a draft, G4 would absolutely apply to that draft, based on the AfD. —Alalch E. 22:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking that's a very compelling use case, since if it's contested enough such that G12 shouldn't apply, G4 should not either. Regardless, G4 excludes an AfD-deleted article in draft or userspace where the intent is to improve it. Good luck proving negative intent. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G12 precisely shouldn't but G4 should because there's an existing consensus to delete the page (the function of G4 is to prevent having the same discussion all over again) and that reason to delete doesn't care about where the content is. Can't start improving from a copyright violation, gotta start from scratch. Edit: it's not about intent at all in this case. —Alalch E. 23:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: MfD can have a delete outcome based on content being too much of an original research, and then someone can recreate the deleted draft as an article, and no (other) speedy deletion criterion applies: G4 applies, across namespaces in this case.—Alalch E. 23:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does no such thing. G4 excludes content that's in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement like I quoted above. Move it back to mainspace unchanged, and absolutely G4 would apply... but I see no scenario where G4 works in draftspace absent a consensus that the editor who did it (or requested it to be done) is not acting in good faith to improve the article. And that requires editorial judgment, and that is not an attribute of a well-crafted CSD criterion. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scenario comes from the fact that G4 is a general criterion that applies in all namespaces, and it not working in draftspace in the special case described does (with a caveat that makes it work after all in that special case) not mean that it does not work in draftspace in the general case. There are six deletion venues and G4 works for pages under the purview of any one of them: RfD - same redirect, TfD - sufficiently identical template, CfD - ..., and MfD - sufficiently identical draft, essay, userbox, ... What I further argue is that it can also crosscut because a consensus can be relevant beyond the narrowest scope of a venue, and it takes no editorial judgement to see that a page is identical, and it takes only a bit of administrative judgement to see that the consensus applies. —Alalch E. 13:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop spilling digital ink here, but I just don't see how it's reasonable to use G4 on draft space with the "for explicit improvement" clause I quoted as part of the text of G4. Feel free to drop by my talk page and explain more, if you care to. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and G4 Per OwenX, this still isn't there yet, but it's not G11 material and should be allowed to be developed in draft in peace, or languish until G13 takes it out. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 doesn't apply here. G11 - I can see why it's tagged, but it's not really applicable here. SportingFlyerT·C 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus here is clearly to overturn, so I will reverse my deletion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
