Kai Cenat (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted via G4 despite not being substantially identical to its deleted version, containing multiple new sources dating after the previous deletion discussion and citing new notable award nominations. G4 did not apply and a new AfD should've been opened. I'm getting tired of the clear bias this community holds against influencers no matter their notability. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It is very soon after the AfD’s clear consensus to delete. Don’t boldly recreate within six months, that is blatant disrespect for the consensus at AfD. If you want to make a case of WP:CCC, do it by discussion with the closing admin, and/or request WP:REFUND to draftspace and present the new sources there. If there really were multiple new sources, of quality, present WP:THREE of them. Link them here or they are presumed to not exist, or to be brief mentions, or junk. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, they were already in the article. Version deleted at afd, version g4'd. Only one source is shared between them; most postdate the afd; and the first one I clicked on, at least, looks gng-satisfying at a glance. —Cryptic 05:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would User:JBW delete the redirect at Draft:Kai Cenat? This further hides User:Célestin Denis‘s edit history that shows he did the right things.

    Speedy undelete and allow nomination at AfD, as a reasonable contest of a G4.

    Apologies for the typical harsh reaction to yet another YouTuber. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nothing wrong with deleting Draft:Kai Cenat - it was only the leftover redirect from moving into mainspace, and the mainspace title had just been deleted. Completely mundane G8. —Cryptic 06:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Is it? Well maybe it shouldn’t be. Much “cleaning up” of draftspace by deletion is pointless as cleanup, and hides evidence.

      18:14, 28 October 2022 Célestin Denis talk contribs moved page Draft:Kai Cenat to Kai Cenat (Before the inevitable speedy deletion for "recreation of a deleted article" nonsense, please take notice of the source included and the fact that the article is not similar to the deleted version. Subject should pass WP:GNG, create an AfD if you think otherwise.)

      Deleting the redirect made it hard to find record Celestin’s use of draftspace, although the move log remains.

      —- SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      And leave it sitting there reading "#REDIRECT Kai Cenat {{Redirect category shell|{{R from move}}}}"? Deleting that wasn't "cleaning up draftspace", it was cleaning up a broken redirect, the sort that were almost the entirety of the old R1's use case before it was merged into G8. If this were otherwise a good G4, then moving the recreation back into draft instead of deleting might've been merciful but by no means required. I'll restore the redir if the mainspace version is undeleted here, because why not, but this seems to be a pretty outlandish tangent to get worked up over. —Cryptic 06:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Draftspace redirects pointing to the location of the deleted mainspaced draft? Let me call it a half-baked idea. Emotions don’t convey well in text posts, I am not worked up. You’ve answered why JBW would delete the redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and trout the deleting admin for not checking similarity. That's fine work improving from the AfD'ed version to the G4'ed, and speedy deletion was indeed an affront to someone trying to do the right thing. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know I'll be blasted for saying this but all of these CSD G4 deletions could be avoided if you would just submit your draft to AFC for review. Recreated articles that are approved and moved to main space by an AFC reviewer are usually not tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. I know it's slower than moving your draft to main space yourself but it's what I recommend to editors who want to create an article that has been deleted through an AFD decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfC process works fine for everything but social media influencers. My experience has shown me that AfC reviewers tend to take a look at draft articles on social media influencers and decide not to make a decision because of the known bias the community holds against such articles. No one wants to face the blame coming with allowing such an article to be in the main-space knowing that sooner or later someone will open an AfD. For that reason, I think it is better to directly move the article in the main space while defending that its presence to be justifiable. Otherwise, there's an infinite cycle of perfectly notable YouTubers being stuck in the draft space as I've seen happen numerous times. Célestin Denis (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention that in the case of a topic already having a previous deletion discussion resulting in delete, reviewers will tend to base their judgement on the previous community established consensus and be extremely hesitant towards its acceptance. Célestin Denis (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is true. I think you’ve done the best you could do. You improved it in draftspace. You mainspaced it yourself (You’re are allowed, AfC is optional, and they are reticent to contradict a recent AfD). When someone tagged it for G4, you contested the tagging at Talk:Kai Cenat. When it was deleted, you approached the deleting admin. You gave him six minutes to respond (that’s maybe a bit short isn’t it?) and then you brought it to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I doubt the subject has actually got more notable in the two months since the AfD, but the article was a significant improvement on the AfDed version and shouldn't have been speedily deleted. The AfD wasn't exactly well attended either. There is no requirement for anyone other than very new editors to use AfC, and AfC submissions can be rejected by a single person who can apply pretty much any standard they like. Hut 8.5 08:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Hut 8.5, aren’t WP:COI editors required to use AfC? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess so, but so what? I don't see any suggestion the OP has a COI. Hut 8.5 09:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just checking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion withdrawn. I deleted the page, but consensus is clearly against me, so I accept that. JBW (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Has this been resolved by restoring the new article, which is now at the 2d AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]