User talk:Ais523/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

July 2022

Hey. I just want to say that the [IP redacted – ais523] was my cousin's account. But I promise that it wont happen again. Thank you for reading. Noobguy33 ^(supernoob) (talk) (now WikiCentral24) 14:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

PROD Spiral Universe

I saw that you contested the PROD. I created the article a long long time ago. I had a WP:COI in that I worked for the company for a period of time in 2009-2010, though I was not asked or paid to create the article. It was deleted at AFD, then I recreated it with new references. Said references are largely dead links now. The company seems to be defunct since it was acquired - I am not in contact with anyone I knew at the company and I believe they all since moved on. I can't confirm it's defunct though, it may still exist in some form. If the community wants to keep the article I'm totally OK with that. Andrevan@ 23:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: In general, notability is not temporary, so either the article was a valid topic once (and thus is still a valid topic), or else it shouldn't have been recreated in the first place – even if the company is now defunct, it's still possible to write a historical article about it. I don't have strong feelings about whether the article should be kept or not, because it's outside my main area of expertise, but think that it probably at least needs a couple more people looking at it before it gets deleted (which is one of the reasons why I removed the {{prod}} tag).

The other reason I deprodded the article is that there had been a previous AfD on it; the normal reasoning is that if an article is nominated for deletion, gets deleted, and later gets recreated, this is evidence that the deletion isn't uncontroversial and thus the proposed deletion tag is inappropriate. (The {{prod}} template noticed this and was asking for help, which is how I found the article in the first place.) That reasoning doesn't 100% apply in this case, because the recreator and proposed-deleter were the same person, but the situation is complicated enough that I don't think a WP:IAR proposed deletion would have much chance of succeeding (there would be a need to ignore the letter of the proposed deletion rules, and it's complicated to work out whether the spirit of the rules applies or not in this case). In general, ignoring rules to proposed-delete articles is unnecessary because there are alternative deletion processes available. --ais523 23:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the dePROD and the AFD. I'm just giving you the information. If the community would rather keep the article I'm absolutely OK with that. It was recreated for valid reasons since there were new references that established notability. This was over 10 years ago and there are a number of processes and policies that were different or less clear back then. For example, it was common back then to delete an article at AFD that lacked references, then recreate it when new references were found. I'm not sure if this is a common practice anymore, I'm guessing not. I was a former admin for many years, back in the day I think we did a lot more spirit-interpretation of policy than is accepted today. Let me know if you have any questions. Andrevan@ 00:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I'm also an "admin of old", and get the sense that much of the spirit-interpretation of policy eventually got codified and is now part of the letter, but much the same processes still hold. For example, if an article gets deleted at AfD for a WP:GNG failure, as far as I can tell there's no rule against recreating it with full referencing in place (WP:CSD#G4 explicitly says that it doesn't apply if the reason for the deletion no longer applies). Additionally, modern AfDs have become very highly focused on whether sourcing exists; if there's meaningful participation, it's likely to solve the sourcing issue one way or the other (and the reason for deletion wouldn't apply if the AfD participants failed to find sources but the recreating editor did), and if there isn't meaningful participation, the AfD might well be closed using WP:SOFTDELETE. The main change in culture seems to be that XfDs get relisted much more often than they used to be.

I suspect spirit-interpretation of policy is just as valid as it used to be, but the number of situations in which it's useful/required has gone down, because if repeated bending of the letter of the rules becomes accepted, that's a very good reason to change the letter of the rules to better match the spirit behind them. --ais523 00:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Sound alright to me. Well, we can let the AFD run its course and decide what to do, unless it looks like it's a Speedy Keep or SNOW close to keep. Andrevan@ 01:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix category sortkey in scripts

A minor issue, but scripts like User:Ais523/votesymbols.js should have a sortkey of votesymbols. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)