Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence/Analysis of speedy deletions by Thryduulf

An article about the same topic was PROD deleted in 2007.

On 11 November, RHaworth deleted the article this was used in, Baldi’s Basics in Education and Learning, per G4 (i have not evaluated that speedy deletion), so the image would have additionally been eligible for F5 in six days.

G11 does not apply as this is not attempting to promote anything, but the tagger (User:PrussianOwl) may have been mislead by the name of the {{db-spam}} template redirect they applied.

This is the sort of thing that should be speedily deleteable in draft space, but currently is not other than leaving it for G13. I've never seen a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that addresses these sorts of pages without including other things that should not be speedily deleted (e.g. expanding A3 to draft space has been rejected for this reason). Using G11 or other criteria to delete these incorrectly will be hiding the scale of any issue, making a new criterion less likely to be approved).

A previous draft at this title was speedily deleted in July (by Deb) as overly promotional and a copyright violation. I have not looked at that version.

However 6 minutes after deleting this page, RHaworth blocked user:Coco1231888765 for sockpuppetry with the summary "user:CozyBug1127". That user was blocked by RHaworth at the same time, also for sockpuppetry, with the summary "user:Coco1231888765". Neither user or user talk page is tagged with a block notice, and neither username appears to have been mentioned at SPI (according to the archive search).

I would not have speedily deleted this page if there were no sockpuppeting concerns as it was not unambiguously exclusively promotional. It would almost certainly have been deleted at MfD had it been nominated. I can't understand enough about the (alleged) socking to know whether G5 would have been correct.

Before RHaworth deleted the page, Oshwah had deleted it under the same criterion but restored it four minutes later with the summary "Restoring pending an investigation via SPI." but left the G11 tag in place. I can't find any on-wiki evidence of an investigation, or of RHaworth communicating with Oshwah about it.

This meets the letter of the "blatant and obvious misinformation" part of the G3 criterion, although it is stretching the spirit a little bit, in the absence of a criterion that covers drafts like these it is not incorrect. Had such a criterion existed deleting under this one would be incorrect through.

This meets the letter of the G6 criterion as written, but deleting redirects from page moves away from long-standing titles, especially immediately after the page move, does not usually have community consensus (and as an RfD regular Steel1943 should know this, RHaworth may or may not be aware). Talk page archives are not common search targets, and there are no incoming links other than to the main talk page and as this is the only archive there is no pattern this did or did not follow, so this is far from an egregiously incorrect nomination but I still feel this is an example of where the 7 days at RfD would have been better than speedy deletion as even though it would likely have resulted in consensus to delete, this was not absolutely certain. There is no evidence that RHaworth considered any of this.

This is an example of why I (and some others) regard G6 as the worst written and most often incorrectly used criterion as the wording does permit deletions like this (even though I'm not alone in thinking it shouldn't).

Finally, the summary is misleading as this was a redirect not an archive page, and the archive page it led to is not unnecessary.

he is respectful and cool

please support him "

This is on the face of it unlikely to be true but youth parliaments are a thing and singers have been influenced by people like that so it's not a blatant hoax or misinformation, especially as the first three Google hits for "Leo Pond" politician have summaries suggesting there is a political commentator/journalist of about this age with this name. So 1 minute's research that neither tagger (PrussianOwl again) nor deleting administrator seem to have done suggests it isn't actually a hoax at all. Even in article space this would not meet any speedy deletion criteria.