The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Blackpink/GA1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)​

Delete to make space for a proper GA review. It seems like one of the editors has blanked the page so it's most likely that they also want it to be deleted. Okmrman (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per rationale. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Sydney Morning Herald 05:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  user:750h+, your signature is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I’m sorry. I’ve changed it to my normal name, hope that’s better. 750h+ 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is talk page history and should never be deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be relatively trivial to simply overwrite the existing content with a new review without needing to delete anything, and even if that is disfavored for some reason, there is no shortage of space and therefore no need to "make room" for anything as new pages may always be created. Looking at the prefix index these are sometimes deleted and sometimes retained though judging from a cursory review many of the deletions were actually WP:G7s done after the MFD was started. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Keep the first review archived, and write a new review at Talk:Blackpink/GA2. The first one was closed with a reason that is not valid, yes, but it's not vandalism either. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: typical practice at GAN is that if a reviewer opens a page without beginning the actual review and then withdraws but can't be bothered to add a G7 (or simply disappears), we will delete the page at G6 because nothing has actually happened. In this case, there was an actual review failure by a second reviewer (if an out-of-process one). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as 750h+ closed the review, and thus it should not be deleted. It really should have been G6'd before, but whatever. change to delete per CMD's rationale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:AirshipJungleman29 it should not have been G6'd before as that would be an abuse of WP:G6. See for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 which rejected that line of reasoning, if a type of page is sometimes retained at XFD discussions then speedy is not appropriate; see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA1 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Clique (song)/GA1. If it is believed desirable that these pages be eligible for WP:CSD then a new one should be created following discussion at WT:CSD, but as is these clearly fall under WP:!G6. Unless that happens other solutions such as moving, blanking, or simply requesting G7s from the creator should be used. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • The reviews you cite were all closed. G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance, of which this is an example, which is why it is explicitly suggested at WP:GAN/I#N4a. It is uncontroversial because of many years of discussions at WT:GAN, and if you look through my CSD log you will find numerous examples of such nominations being accepted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      User:AirshipJungleman29 that is irrelevant, WikiProjects do not make policy or have any special power over content. WP:CSD is policy, nowhere does WP:G6 authorze the deltion of those pages, and note that the page listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 had only one author and was not closed as you claim, nor was the second MFD I cited closed when listed at MFD [1]; the fact that certain bad speedy deletions are made does not justify making others, I would know since I have gotten multiple speedies overturned by listing them at DRV. You don't have to take my word for it, go inquire at WT:CSD and people there will tell you the same. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E171:7509:BE8D:6BD5 (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Of course G6 authorises the deletion of that content—what else does "uncontroversial maintenance" mean? If you think it means "only the examples listed below", you may wish to look up the meaning of "including". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It’s common G6 misuse and is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      No, it's precisely what G6 is for. If you want to alter G6 to read "This is for the following situations only:" you are free to propose a change; until then, it will be continued to be used for uncontroversial maintenance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Deleting someone else’s contributions is never uncontroversial. It is also not maintenance, but laziness. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      This line of reasoning is self-defeating, the very fact people are disputing this in this very thread means its clearly not uncontroversial, and WP:!G6 is directly linked at WP:G6. But tell you what if you really think it is uncontroversial go ahead and add this use case under WP:G6 if you are reverted, and I promise not to be the one that does so, then I think you will have your answer, or you can save everyone some time and just ask directly at WT:CSD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDD8:5E1C:3E77:A8E6 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      "uncontroversial" means that there is no viable argument opposing it. The page is not "talk page history", and "I don't like the facts that "including" is vague and WP:!G6 is an essay" is not a viable argument. If SmokeyJoe really believes that "Deleting someone else’s contributions is never uncontroversial.", they should apply to remove all CSD criteria apart from G7 and U1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      No, this statement only applies to applications of WP:G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      User:AirshipJungleman29, again your argument is self-defeating, you say "there is no viable argument opposing" on the very same page where you endorse a statement saying "The Sydney Morning Herald/750+ went out of process on the third edit by speedying this without a valid CSD rationale", and frankly I have trouble even trying to parse the rest of your statement; there may be some sort of internal consistency somewhere but I'm not seeing it. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:958D:3798:496:3225 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I feel like it is appropriate to chime in here on G6: "uncontroversial" means there is no meaningful controversy. It doesn't become controversial if one person, at some point in the history of the world, mentions somewhere on Wikipedia that they don't like deleting a page.

      GA reviews exist for the purpose of facilitating the GA process. The GA process is administered and coordinated by the people who run it. This shouldn't be that complicated: if they think it's pointless, what point is there in asking what the whole village thinks? jp×g🗯️ 10:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      This is contrary to the entirety of deletion policy, imagine me saying all deletions in topic area X should be governed only by those who edit there, what point is there in asking what the whole village thinks? Preposterous. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:958D:3798:496:3225 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    if a type of page is sometimes retained at XFD discussions then speedy is not appropriate -- this is preposterous. The outcomes of deletion discussions are heavily influenced by random noise, so low participation can mean that a MfD closes with no consensus after a single person comments to keep. A single heckler's veto on a single nomination should not not create a permanent months-long obstacle to carrying out all basic maintenance tasks on "a type of page"... jp×g🗯️ 10:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JPxG On the contrary, that is at the core of the WP:CSD policy. And you do not have to take my word for it, just ask WT:CSD, uncontestability is key, though we do for obvious reasons disallow page creators from removing them in most cases.

    All XFDs are explicitly WP:!VOTEs so hecklers veto cannot apply as any !VOTES that are not supported can be ignored. There fore it creates no obstacle, actually the best way to get a WP:NEWCSD added is to show a months long track-record of SNOW deletions at XFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:958D:3798:496:3225 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but even if they're ignored, everybody has to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and wait for the entire gigantic process to run its course. MfDs tend to consume large amounts of volunteer effort, and even if they are uncontroversial, it still takes weeks for the task to be executed. It is not reasonable to say that, e.g. one single person should be able to singlehandedly remove an entire type of page from CSD merely by objecting to it repeatedly. jp×g🗯️ 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JPxG First who cares about the weeklong wait? It really is no time at all if you just do something else, and I've seen pages stay in the CSD queque for multiple days because they were a pain to analyze. And actually uncontroversial MFDs consume almost no volunteer time, literally the time it takes one person to type out a good rationale, and then for 2-3 more people to type "delete per nom", maybe two-three minutes between four people. It is controversial XFDs that take up large amounts of time. If one person is tendentiously objecting to a single kind of page against the consensus of the community that is a behavior problem that can be addressed with a topic ban. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:958D:3798:496:3225 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A wait to remove these false start GAN pages adds additional work and has the potential of leading to more confusion and cleanup at a later point. CMD (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In what way? As I said uncontentious XFDs take up very little contributor time. And "leading to more confusion and cleanup at a later point" (emphasis mine obviously), so seven days will lead to confusion after the seven days are over? That makes no sense. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GAN is a live ongoing process with a number of interlocking parts. If one part is put in statis and other parts end up doing something else during that time then yes, potentially more confusion and cleanup at a later point when the first part exits stasis. CMD (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chipmunkdavis "Potentially" is doing a lot of work there; lots of things could potentially cause confusion, including every single speedy deletion ever performed. Absent a strong history containing multiple actual examples showing this to be the case skepticism is the default, and even if there is a problem it is something that needs to be resolved in a way that does not conflict with the deletion policy. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting this page does not contradict the deletion policy. Potentially is doing the work there, as there are a few moving parts and I can't predict the future. My hope is that the long backlog of GAN articles means that this is resolved before further GAN actions happen, but that doesn't seem a sensible long-term policy. There is a long history of having to clean up GA-related pages, this is one small example of a page created apparently by mistake that has been gummed up because it was tagged with an incorrect CSD and then untagged citing a different type of page. CMD (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chipmunkdavis "Deleting this page does not contradict the deletion policy." I never said it did, I have only made a comment here actually, deleting pages outside of process as you seem to suggest needs to be done for some reason is against the deletion policy, listing them at MFD is not. Would it be great if everyone would g7 in cases like this? Sure. If they don't, then MFD is the way forward. That was not a substantively different type of page, but for what its worth I cited three MFDs above that were for pages of exactly this form that were kept at MFD. Speedy deletion is only for certain specific and narrow circumstances, you don't have to take my word for it, go ask at WT:CSD and you will hear the same. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not suggested deleting pages out of process. GANs and GARs are substantively different, and are handled differently with different implications. The mixup of GAN and GAR, the assertion that the review page might be overwritten by a new one, and the suggestion that a weeks delay causes no issues show an unfamiliarity with the GA process, which would be fine if it did not reemerge in new confident assertions. The need to handle these new assumptions is also not helping with the assertion that this MfD is not taking up community time. This side discussion started following your assertion that there would be no issues with wait time, that remains the case as explained and I'm not sure how the tangent about G7s and WT:CSD affects this. CMD (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chipmunkdavis GANs and GARs are not substantively different from a CSD perspective that is not to say they are entirely identical, but fundamentally they are both internal (non-reader facing) process pages covered only by the GCSD, your point is irrelevant anyway because it is trivial to find even better examples of GANs retained at MFD.

    You have repeatedly asserted that a week delay causes issues, but have never substantiated that claim, despite multiple requests for you to do so, sorry where I work we do not accept proof by assertion. "Your assertion that there would be no issues with wait time" clever attempt to shift the burden of proof, but that won't work with me; don't waste my time with rhetorical maneuvers.

    People highly experienced with the GA process have disagreed with the entire basis of your assertions, so don't try to play the expert card on GAs either. Refute their claims and back up your assertions with evidence or find someone different to target rhetoric at. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:8482:B43C:FC7:1AA (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, what I said was that it could potentially cause issues. I even specifically said I hoped it wouldn't. The diff you cite to attempt expertise on the GA process is from over half a decade ago, when processes were different, a response that demonstrates again continued unfamiliarity with the processes in question. CMD (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chipmunkdavis "it could potentially cause issues" ah so this is classic motte-and-baileyism, every single speedy deletion we do "could potentially cause issues", its a worthless claim from any kind of decision-making perspective. And you just added another evidenceless assertion at the end there to the ever growing heap, how precisely was the process different? how precisely different was WP:CSD from today? Diffs make providing evidence in these cases easy, and yet while I have provided links and diffs at multiple points you have continuously failed to do so. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6C18:E506:2DA2:2A75 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think repeating the literal statement I made earlier almost word for word is motte-and-baileyism, classic or not. If you consider the way the GA process works worthless that is your prerogative. If you are genuinely interested, the GA process has undergone quite a few changes over the past few years. One collection of major changes can be found at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023, the rest is in the GA archives. Compared to 2018, the process is run by an entirely new bot. This bot collects and parses information differently to the last one, for example as already noted on this page it uses page creation to collect information for the backend statistics. Its transclusion of nominations is obviously affected by their presence/absence. Any issues that emerge from non-standard treatment add to the workload of the bot maintainer, who has to manually adjust statistics in a way not done in 2018. I have not mentioned WP:CSD, unclear why you brought that up. That 2018 diff is the only diff you have placed in this discussion thread, which again, has veered widely off-topic of the original point, which was an incorrectly rhetorical question about caring about the length of time some of these processes take. Please do not ping me with further tangents. CMD (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't want to be pinged stop replying, and it seems fairly clear you either don't understand what motte-and-baileyism is, or are playing some kind of intellectually dishonest game that I won't engage in. Making things easy for a bot is never a valid reason to violate deletion policy. That is not the only diff btw, merely the only one in response to you, and again I should not be the one providing diffs, you should be the one providing diffs that is how burden of proof works.

    When I parse this all what it looks like is that you engaged in rhetorical maneuver to advance a point rather than engaging in intellectually honest discussion and then got angry when called out on it, well tough, don't engage in worthless rhetorical maneuvers and you won't get this kind of pushback, focus should be on identifying and solving problems in a rigorous manner. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6C18:E506:2DA2:2A75 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Sydney Morning Herald/750+ went out of process on the third edit by speedying this without a valid CSD rationale, but that is not a reason to keep it around. There are no substantive edits pre-deletion discussion. The only potentially substantive edits since then were to try and remove the page another way and a note this was inappropriate, both by editors who have commented here and have indicated delete or that it should have been deleted. This is not part of the talkpage history, just an autogenerated page. Keeping it just creates a permanent record of mistakes by two newer users for no benefit to anyone. CMD (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Records of mistakes are important records. It can be archived. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither the one user clicking the start review button nor the second user adding a speedy delete tag are important records. CMD (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User mistakes are records. User mistakes are evidence of processes that could use improvement.

  Speedy deletions must be objective, and “the history is not important” is not an objective criterion. It can be archived. Processes that archive mistakes don’t add to the burden/dependence on administrators. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a general MfD discussion, not a discussion to speedy the article. At any rate, there are plenty of CSDs for deleting mistakes. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah sorry, the G6 assertion is the thread above. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No harm is done by keeping, and either overwriting, which leaves the history, or creating GA2. Minimal harm is done by deletion. Primum non nocere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Overwriting does not work technically, as GA statistics are collected based on page creation. A minor harm in the scale of things, but more than deleting a procedurally generated page. CMD (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no use archiving this, and it makes the GA-related paperwork easier and more useful than fail+renominate. —Kusma (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with great prejudice. This is a GA review page; the reason it exists is to serve the GA process. The GA process is administered and coordinated by the people who work at GAN/GAR/etc. These people are why the process functions at all, and without them, it would not. So if they say that a page needs to be deleted in order for their processes to work correctly: first of all, why in tarnation would we know better than them? Second of all, even if we do, there is a tradeoff to be made here, and we must consider the options. On one hand, there is the bureaucratic and archival issue of what is gained from maintaining the historical record (in the form of a page history) that someone started a GA review and then it didn't happen. On the other hand, there is the fact that forcing this page to stay around seems to create a huge pain in the ass for all the GA people, and forces them to work around a stupid edge-case that violates the typical expectations for how GA review pages are supposed to work. I say that they do not need to be forced to deal with bureaucratic gobbledygook for the sheer thrill of it, simple because we derive jouissance from following rules to the letter. jp×g🗯️ 10:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This situation has come up many times. It needs to have a better answer than asking for questionable speedy deletions, and will continue to need to have a better answer than asking for questionable speedy deletions even if this discussion is closed as delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:JPxG, can you point to documentation about the GA process that substantiates what you saying here? If not, can you write it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I in principle agree with the keep comments above, and am the primary author of the !G6 essay, but for this specific case WT:GAN#Talk:Blackpink/GA1 makes it clear it was "unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace", so G6 did apply before the drama unfolded. Hence delete, but don't take this discussion as carte blanche to delete more stuff that should not be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" is quite a different picture to the nomination statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that the nomination does not explain what is going on very well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did mark it for G6 but the IP reverted it. Okmrman (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I were forced to make a decision on that speedy based on the information available at the time I would have declined it too - the way you articulated the speedy deletion is a clear WP:!G6. It's only based on information that both postdated your tag and even if it had existed I would have had no reason to look for that it became speediable. In truth I would probably have lacked the willpower to start this mess by declining, but the IPs actions are in no way wrong. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Grudging delete per Pppery, with the same proviso that this is the exception not the rule. It's not like we have a shortage of numbers, and in general even bad reviews should be kept for history, but if it makes it easier to preserve seniority of the nomination and this was truly a misclick-level review, I suppose. It's also possible that the GA1 subpage could be moved to something like GA_XX to preserve the history of what happened while opening up GA1 to be claimed again. SnowFire (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.