Misplaced Pages

Draft:Isik Abla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted against WP:STALE and in spite of discussion then occuring on Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Deleting admin comments: Page was nominated for WP:G12 (copyright violation). Newimpartial contested the deletion, as only about 75% of the content was a copyvio. I concurred, removed the offending text, and noticed that the remainder was overly promotional with little left to salvage (and zero references). Thus, I deleted it WP:G11. STALE has nothing to do with this, and as I have repeatedly stated on my talk page, simply contesting a speedy tag does not automatically make it invalid (though again, the G12 was successfully contested). Primefac (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) You mean User talk:Isik Abla1, the talk page of the user who created it, I take it? I see no such discussion there. WP:STALE has exactly nothing to do with why the page was deleted, and I can confirm that it was a copyright violation, nearly in its entirety, since its first revision. (And, typically for copyvios, the content was so unsuitable for Misplaced Pages that a deletion as unambiguous advertising would also have been defensible.)Unless you have and present a very strong argument that this was in fact not a copyright violation, this review is likely to be closed in very short order. —Cryptic 02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  Cryptic, I believe they are referring to Draft talk:Isik Abla. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that is where I wrote the objection. WP:STALE sets out a number of criteria for deletions from Draft space, which do not include WP:N or the likelihood of a Draft becoming a Misplaced Pages article. It seems to me that this was a good faith draft, and that in spite of the WP:COPYVIO the appropriate course was to delete that content, and allow someone to rewrite it. This is particularly the case since the Draft had only been recently rejected at AfC, and not for reasons of WP:COPYVIO. It is fine for Primefac to say that G12 was overturned, so then he used G11, but that isn't really how SD is supposed to work, is it? A bit of a shell game, if nobody can see the notice before deletion.

  In any case, all I am really saying in this context is that its deletion (and that of the talk page) should be overturned so that in can go through the MfD process. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Hm, well, color me unconvinced. This would still have been deleted if it went to WP:CP (not MFD, as demanded on Draft talk:); nearly half of even the post-revdel version is either directly infringing or deleteably-close paraphrasing; and it's a G11 regardless. —Cryptic 02:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

    Well, it's fine to be unconvinced, but this was one of series of SD nominations that did not meet the criteria posted in the notice (as far as I could tell) and I just wanted procedure to be followed, which I don't believe it was. WP:COPYVIO reads:

    "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." This is not what was done. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Followed from Primefac's talk. If the content was G11 eligible it would have also been G12 eligible because that criteria clearly states that where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving it is able to be applied. Excessive copyvio often is present with G11 eligible drafts and new pages because the marketing people just recycle. Since I can't see the article, and I trust Primefac's judgement on most thing's implicitly, 75% match for copyvio plus advertising is a good speedy candidate. Cryptic's further analysis of more copyvio is an additional argument against restoration. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Most of what's not from the cited site is from and (according to Google; Facebook doesn't show me a thing with NoScript on, so I can't confirm) . The only paragraph I can't source is the one starting "Today, Işık’s programs are broadcast in 160 countries on five continents in five languages", and that's the G11iest of them all. —Cryptic 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• (nb: I've just speedied another copy of this at User:Cottona/sandbox. —Cryptic 03:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC))

If it's a real problem, then it must be dealt with. My issue was procedural, since the article in question was deleted without discussion, and against my Prima Faciae objection. I have no sympathy with actual spam generators. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to believe that because you recently found a new wiki career protecting spam by trying to close MfDs with "procedural close", seeking to have spam undeleted, and now removing speedy tags from obvious spam cases. I'm thinking of going to ANi over your nonsense when I'm on a computer not mobile. Legacypac (talk)

You can believe what you want, but you are the one repeatedly violating WP:CONSENSUS, Legacypac, not me.Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with this to be closed, per Cryptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)