- Moruf Oseni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The page was deleted under the G11 and A7 criteria. There was no communication before the deletion. The subject is the CEO of a top Bank in Nigeria (Wema Bank) and so qualifies to have a Wiki page. He is notable enough. I would like to be able to edit the article in a draft space to fix the G11 issue before seeking approval to move to mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see that this has been through a deletion discussion, but it certainly looks like multiple users and admins have been booting an article under this name back to Draftspace for months now. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List of cognitive biases#Conformity at play? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List. The sources are mostly routine or lists of executives. I don't think this would hold up to an AFD, but I probably would not have speedily deleted it. I'd support allowing recreation and listing it for a discussion at AFD. Then if it is deleted again, salt the page and be done with it. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List on the general principle that speedy deletions should be uncontentious, and this has become contentious. If there are multiple efforts to restore something that was deleted, it is better to have a Delete consensus before create-protecting the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While there is no requirement to consult or communicate before speedy-deleting an article, given the extensive history it seems sensible to send to AFD to come to a consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Go to WP:REFUND and request draftification. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - WP:REFUND does not restore pages that have been deleted as A7 or WP:G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It does if the request is for REFUND to draftspace, especially with the stated intent to contest the speedy. For A7, especially easily. Note that User:Michael Ugbodu is explicitly asking for draftification to improve it, and is not asking to go to AfD immediately. Those !voting “List” appear to have not read his statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The instructions at REFUND say:
Do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 be undeleted here. If it is the practice of REFUND to store A7 and G11 pages, then the instructions should be changed.
- It may be pointless to draftify pages deleted under G11, because drafts can be tagged for deletion as G11 and sometimes are deleted as G11.
- It would be a good idea for editors, including promotional editors, to keep a copy of the page that they publish to Wikipedia, so that they don't have to request that we give them back their spam (or their non-spam). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors also have the option of refund by email, which has very few restrictions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary Undelete so that non-admins can see whether there is non-promotional content. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Bad G11. Bad A7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn very clear misapplication of A7, as a claim to significance is made (CEO of a bank). Some of the content is G11 but there is enough non-promotional content in the article that it should not have been speedy deleted. It can be sent to AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. A7 clearly wrong. The "achievements" section is quite bad, but the rest of the article isn't G11-worthy. Mach61 23:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. An understandable, humanly excusable partiality towards making this article go away is what I feel led to this fundamentally wrong speedy deletion. The article is not subject to speedy deletion under the cited criteria, and there is no evidence that any other criteria apply.—Alalch E. 23:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Clearly not A7, not promotional enough to be unambiguous/unfixable and so G11. Any editor can take it to AfD to hash out. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to draftspace A7 was wrong, G11 was probably correct, I can't see this getting kept at AfD and the petitioner has specifically requested draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn both A7 and G11. The Achievements section is spam, but G11 is for articles that are "exclusively promotional", not for articles that contain promotional sections. If the appellant wants it restored to draft space, that is even better than restoring it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The achievements section paraphrases accurately the references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List so that we can finally SALT this page. Do not draftify, as it will be bounced right back to mainspace as soon as turn our head away. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd not normally have G11'd this - that was prompted by the move out of draftspace by a now-undisclosed paid editor (since the only disclosure was on Talk:Moruf Oseni), which is something they are explicitly forbidden to do.On the other hand, calling this a "top bank" lies somewhere between wishful thinking and an outright lie; it's not in the world's top thousand largest, or the continent's top hundred, or even Nigeria's top thirteen (which is all I can readily find stats for, but it's well below the size of the thirteenth listed there). This is roughly the size of a branch office in a typical US city, so no, just being its CEO is not a statement that one would expect to turn up evidence for notability if searched for. So I dispute that the A7 was clearly wrong, but I see which way this is going, so there's no need to wait out the week. —Cryptic 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ”Explicitly forbidden to do”? But that’s just a “behavioural guideline”, and the community refuses to include PAID or UPE or COI at WP:Deletion policy as a reason for deletion, see the talk page archives. These pages NEED to go to AfD to get “the community” involved in this contradiction as an important step to solving it. Pseudo-deletion of UPE product via admins misuse of CSD AND SALTing policy perpetuates the problem of the contradiction between documented policy and practice on UPE generated promotional content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine of content created by undisclosed paid editors.
- The authors declaration should be posted at the top of their Userpage, not on a transient talk page. Personally I found favour the declaration needing to be in the username, eg User:Editor name (PAID). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like to rake anyone over the coals on disagreements regarding what constitutes a WP:CCS as there some room for interpretation, and indeed is entirely the reason why A7 can be one of the more difficult CSDs to apply in practice. However, in general being the CEO of blue-linked company will preclude A7 WP:CCSI#BIZBIO. That is not ironclad, a common exception is when a user creates an organization article and related bios at the same time with no other CCS for any of them in which case they will usually be A7 deleted together, but it is a solid rule of thumb when applied with common sense.
- From the perspective of discouraging and dealing with COI/UPE editing, AFD is better in every way but volume management in that it creates a clearer consensus against the existence of the article, and even facilitates the speedy process because rather than dealing with a borderline A7 when reposted you now have an unambiguous G4.
- The quarantine of content proposal strikes me as trying to do too much, especially in its introduction of a new associated process. I think it would be easier to use an existing process and simply mandate AFC review of all UPE creations not in the mainspace longer than some specified cutoff with no substantive edits by others, and I would probably support something like that if proposed at an RFC, but that is off-topic for the present discussion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B492:F81A:745E:8E8D (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AFD. Overreach with G11 and A7, speedy deletion challenged (not only by the apparent paid(?) editor, so speedy is inappropriate, and a discussion before deletion is warranted. At a quick read, notability is at best unclear. However, given WP's developed-world bias I think it is good if this is discussed more thoroughly (and it is possible better sourcing and notability is available). It does seem there may be a paid-editor *conduct* issue here as well (insufficient disclosure? inappropriate conflicted-editor mainspace creation?) that can be dealt with separately. Ultimately, the article can be improved, or the sources evaluated and actually found sufficient, or punted back to draft, or deleted and salted, based on a proper discussion. Martinp (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
