Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 9

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 10 December 2024 (→Pump.fun: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2024 December 8
2024 December 10 >

9 December 2024

Pump.fun

Pump.fun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources. However, new independent and reliable sources have been identified that address notability concerns, including coverage in the Nytimes, Wired, Bloomberg, Gizmodo, and Yahoo Finance. These sources provide substantial and independent analysis of the platform, demonstrating its notability under WP:GNG. I believe the article can now be reinstated in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffre01 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming I'm aware of this as the most recent deleter, and see prior discussion on my talk page at User talk:Pppery#pump.fun. I'm going to let other deletion review regulars comment before making a more substantive comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An assertion that "sources exist" without providing them is never enough to restore a page, but especially not for one deleted at AFD a week and a half ago. —Cryptic 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were, admittedly, additional sources in the G4-ed versions that aren't in the deleted version. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was taking them at their word here that there were "new" ones. Almost all of the ones in the recreation long predate the afd. —Cryptic 21:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Original AfD nominator comment:) There are a couple of usable sources in the G4ed article, but there are also several sources that are being laundered through news aggregators. @Chiffre01: Just because something is syndicated by Yahoo! Finance or MSN does not make it more reliable; CoinDesk, CoinMarketCap, and Cryptopolitan are not usable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 and unsalt If there are new sources in a re-creation, it's not substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, if the same user keeps adding inadequate sourcing, that's a user conduct issue, and should be dealt with as such. G4 and Salt are blunt instruments best suited to when many people are trying to re-create and article. Having said that, I have no particular reason to think this will survive a new AfD, and would recommend it be worked on in draft space until everyone's satisfied about the sourcing. While that might not make everyone happy, it's better than out-of-process G4s or repeated AfDs, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Overturn G4. The deleting admin admitted there were new sources, therefore making the deleted version not sufficiently identical. I share Jclemens’ recommendation that this be moved to draftspace to allow interested users to improve the page to a point in which it would not be deleted via AFD again. Frank Anchor 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The temp undelete confirms that relevant content, in addition to sourcing, was added to this version, confirming that the G4 was inappropriate. Frank Anchor 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You (plural) are creating an absurd perverse incentive - deliberately don't include withold some of the sources you have found from the AfD so you can immediately recreate it and force it to go through the whole rigamarole again. We must not allow ourselves to be bound by that. (To be clear, I'm not accusing Chiffre01 of having done so, just pointing out that someone could). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution to our admittedly informal 'rules' being subject to abuse by bad-faith actors is not to not follow the rules, but rather to note that bad faith application of any Wikipedia rule is a conduct issue, not one of content. We can argue that G4 should be changed, although I think it's fine the way it is, but to pretend that adding a new source isn't a substantial change to an article stretching definitions implausibly. Speedy deletions are to be uncontroversial; this one clearly was not. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the new sources? Given this area of the project is very disruptive, jumping to any sort of conclusion that a G4 should be overturned or that this should be unsalted feels plainly incorrect to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tempundeleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 - The version of the article that was deleted as G4 has information in the article body that was not in the article that was the subject of the AFD. The two versions of the article are not substantially identical. The differences are not just sources. The G4 nominator may nominate the new article for a second AFD, but it is entitled to a second AFD because it is not a repost. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to re-create the article as a draft page/ Any thoughts? Chiffre01 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ca talk to me! 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I understand Wikipedia’s concerns about promotional content and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it.

The draft was still in the draft stage and not yet published. I was working to present factual information about Shay Albert Vidas and his work in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Unfortunately, the deleting administrator, Bbb23, did not provide feedback on what was considered promotional, and I was not given the opportunity to revise the content.

Additionally, I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted. I am also unable to post on the Administrators’ Noticeboard due to semi-protection and my account status. I have no way to resolve this issue without assistance.

I am committed to addressing any issues raised and rewriting the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. I kindly request that the draft be restored to my user page for improvement. Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayvidas (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, having not seen the deleted draft, but trusting the judgment of Bbb23, and being familiar with autobiographies. The originator should be able to reconstruct what he wrote about his own career if he didn't keep a copy on his computer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but it doesn't hurt for someone to email him the deleted content. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egregious spam. Endorse and do not provide the deleted content, on the slim hope he'll have to pay someone to write it again if he wants to use it elsewhere. —Cryptic 10:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect he did pay someone to write this. The standard of his English seems to vary from one contribution to another. Deb (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and do not undelete. Vidas or his company may well be notable but nearly every single sentence of that article is unusable because it's 100% promotional (about the only one that would survive is the one about where and when he was born; even the sentence about his wife feels the need to eulogise her.) Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we are very known in israel, i can show you a lot of proof i'm not sure how to attach it,
    can i do another one, and you will tell me now if it will pass or not ?
    or adleast give me some info on What was wrong, so i will know to change it,
    i can do another draft and this time just tell me what to modify it ?
    would it be ok ?
    it's ok if it needs to be deleeted
    just to refrain from that happening again and again, can you look at a modified version i will write now and tell me what is wrong with it ? Shayvidas (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted”.
This is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT on the part of User:Bbb23.
Userfy or email. User:Shayvidas, ensure that you have enabled email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe I'm not entirely sure what else Bbb23 is supposed to do when your talk page history includes 57 protection entries from 21 different admins and 118 removals of offensive material via revision-deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. Create a special mechanism to flag a desire to talk? Give the DRV applicant some benefit of the doubt? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one. I'm sure there's some cunning way of getting around it, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't a tricky situation even before the editor became auto-confirmed. User:Bbb23 has email enabled. An admin who has semi-protected their talk page and has email enabled has made administrator accountability feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate all the feedback and understand the concerns about promotional content in my draft. My aim is not to use Wikipedia for advertising but to provide factual information about my career and contributions to watchmaking i have no reason to lie to you, this is 100% true. I am committed to rewriting the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability.
I would be grateful if specific examples of problematic content could be highlighted, so I can address them in a revised version.I dont want to be blocked, as i worked hours on all the text and I acknowledge past mistakes and am seeking guidance to ensure my next draft avoids similar issues can you please tell me what in my last draft was bad as in spacific sentences ?.
I oppose providing any conflict of interest editor with specific examples of problematic content. They are asking us to do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed suggestions about restoring the draft to my user page or emailing it for further revision. I would greatly appreciate this, as it would help me revise the content more effectively and align it with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you friends. --Shayvidas (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to acknowledge Robert McClenon suggestion that I can rewrite the draft with a more neutral tone. I am more than willing to remove or rewrite any sections that were problematic.
I didn't suggest that. I am often in favor of and never against rewriting promotional material with a more neutral tone, but I didn't make that suggestion. I said that the appellant should be able to reconstruct the draft without the need for undeletion. They should remember what their own career has been. If it really took them a long time to write a promotional autobiography, they just wasted a lot of their own time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest or advocate restoring the deleted draft. If they forgot to keep a copy of their work, we do not need to do their housekeeping for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to address the point raised by User:Bbb23about contacting their Talk page. As Owen× correctly pointed out, I was not yet autoconfirmed at the time I attempted to reach out. I made a genuine attempt to resolve this issue and avoid any misunderstandings.
If it’s possible, I would kindly request the restoration of the draft to my user page so I can make the necessary revisions based on the feedback provided.

If this isn’t feasible, I would greatly appreciate detailed guidance on how I can approach a new draft that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you again for your time and understanding.

Endorse No LLM-generated deletion reviews. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i actually wrote it myself and it took quit a lot of time.
and also talked to friends, revised it over and over and over again
and it took hours. i can show proof if needed. Shayvidas (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily tell that you wrote it yourself because it only concentrates on the good things about you and your company. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the friends to whom you showed it were familiar with Wikipedia, they would have been able to tell you that we don't accept promotional articles. Deb (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_December_9&oldid=1262313288"