- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nyu Media
edit- ... that a dispute between Nyu Media and PayPal led to a reform of the latter's crowdfunding policies?
- Reviewed: Kongzi Jiayu
Created by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC).
New enough, long enough. Hook checks out via the online sources. QPQ done. Good to go. — sparklism hey! 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
1. D5 Article has been nominated for deletion 2. A4/F8 Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (it has been recreated in the past 10 days if that counts?) 3. F10 / D13 : WP:NOTADVERTISING / not seen to encourage/reward previous advertising / previous paid editing per Concerns at Talk:Nyu Media#DYK_nomination Widefox; talk 13:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Widefox; talk 13:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Getting overly litigious now. The DYK standard is to put the nom on hold while the AfD (which you just started) runs, not to kill it. The article was indeed created within the last ten days—the G11'd history of the article (which was not used in the rewrite) was restored at your request for the talk page restoration. Furthermore, the current article has nothing to do with the previous creator's paid editing, as I have rewritten it from scratch after it was G11'd. czar ⨹ 14:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let me clarify - 1. and 2. are reds from the automated script 1. would be a hold 2. I have no experience - but I'm willing to withdraw 2. if that's the norm 3. is a concern more than one editor has expressed, and is intentionally voted as delete. This is a controvercial nom. (other comment taken to usertalk). Widefox; talk 14:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Getting overly litigious now. The DYK standard is to put the nom on hold while the AfD (which you just started) runs, not to kill it. The article was indeed created within the last ten days—the G11'd history of the article (which was not used in the rewrite) was restored at your request for the talk page restoration. Furthermore, the current article has nothing to do with the previous creator's paid editing, as I have rewritten it from scratch after it was G11'd. czar ⨹ 14:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the normal icons used to put a nomination on hold when an article is at AfD. Widefox, as the filer of the AfD, you have a bit of a COI here, so having noted the AfD, I'd recommend leaving any review to an uninvolved party, especially given your DYK inexperience. However, Czar, I don't see how this can be justified as a new article. It's clear to me from looking at the history that you've used the opportunity given you by a highly questionable article deletion to build a better article, but the fact remains that an article with this name has effectively existed for almost an entire year (and was only absent from mainspace for 46 minutes). As such, DYK would not consider this new but a pre-existing article that needs a 5x expansion (WP:DYKSG#A4 is germane here), and only previous material that was copyvio would be excluded from a 5x expansion calculation. At the moment, the article as it exists is very slightly smaller than the article as it was before the inappropriate G11 was executed; barring extensive copyvio in the old article, which I doubt because I imagine it would have surfaced during the original AfD, I don't see how this can qualify for DYK this time around. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset, I agree that this article's history is FUBAR. Post-G11, I recreated the article from scratch—not sure why it should make a difference if that happened 46 minutes or 46 years following its deletion. The G11 history is only visible because there was a later request to restore the old talk page's content and the article's history came along. As I saw it, unless someone questions the quality of the G11 (which hasn't happened yet), the article was, for all purposes, TNT'd and created as any other article would have been. czar ⨹ 09:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Czar, you're certainly welcome to bring this up on the DYK talk page if you feel I've made a bad call here, but to me this is just like any other previously existing article that was recently turned into a redirect. We've had those situations before, and they've been required to be 5x expansions, not new. In my opinion, the following applies:
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion.
BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I defer to your experience on details like this, but it doesn't quite make sense to me why a deleted article written with new sources from the ground up would be considered an expansion instead of a creation, so I'll run it past WT:DYK fast czar ⨹ 16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset 1. and 2. are just the output of the DYKcheck, so seem objective and technical (an update since Sparklism reviewed). Subjectively, my main review is not AfD, but disapproval 3., and my understanding is anyone including those new to DYK may participate. As nom of two AfDs, if that is a level of involvement too close for DYK review, then please disregard my input, and instead see DGG's reaction to this nom linked above. Widefox; talk 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Czar, you're certainly welcome to bring this up on the DYK talk page if you feel I've made a bad call here, but to me this is just like any other previously existing article that was recently turned into a redirect. We've had those situations before, and they've been required to be 5x expansions, not new. In my opinion, the following applies:
- @BlueMoonset, I agree that this article's history is FUBAR. Post-G11, I recreated the article from scratch—not sure why it should make a difference if that happened 46 minutes or 46 years following its deletion. The G11 history is only visible because there was a later request to restore the old talk page's content and the article's history came along. As I saw it, unless someone questions the quality of the G11 (which hasn't happened yet), the article was, for all purposes, TNT'd and created as any other article would have been. czar ⨹ 09:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see a G11 in the article's history. Is there a diff here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492, only in the log. It wasn't tagged, just deleted. The pre-G11 article edits were not restored for their content but came along for the ride after Widefox requested the restoration of the previous talk page two days later. The current article shares no actual history with that previous talk page conversation or any of the pre-G11 content. czar ⨹ 03:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. The text I was writing follows:
- @Crisco 1492, only in the log. It wasn't tagged, just deleted. The pre-G11 article edits were not restored for their content but came along for the ride after Widefox requested the restoration of the previous talk page two days later. The current article shares no actual history with that previous talk page conversation or any of the pre-G11 content. czar ⨹ 03:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Blue asked me to comment here on my talk page. I must admit this is a first for me, in the entire time I've participated in DYK. Generally if an article is deleted then eventually recreated, there is a period of several years between iterations, not one day. In these cases authors are often unaware that there was a previous version, let alone able to check what the previous version was.
- That being said, articles which have previously been deleted and (I note) this deletion has not been overturned following the processes in place for this, have in my experience been treated as new articles. Most of the articles I've written didn't have this problem, but some I've reviewed, such as Valeria Lukyanova, have. In the case of Valeria Lukyanova, the article was created anew after being deleted at AFD and under G4. It was successfully nominated at DYK, because it was completely written anew. The the deleted version was not considered (though it was later reinstated), as it was not there when the article was created. Furthermore, to be able to check deleted versions, one must be an admin; we barely have enough admins to handle the queues, let alone review all nominations.
- Now, this being
one daybetween deletion and recreation, there may be a push to disallow the article. However, I think it should be allowed, since Czar did not use any of the previous article in creating the new one; had he written this based on a userfied copy, my opinion would be quite different. Furthermore, he did not try to game the system by having the article deleted; the (out of process) deletion was done by another user, without any urging (and, indeed, over the complaints of) Czar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)- Crisco 1492, thanks for taking the time. Just to be clear, the article was recreated 46 minutes after it was deleted, not one day—almost immediately, in fact. I gather that you feel this wouldn't make a difference, but let's at least describe the time scale correctly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Right. I forgot to update that after being directed to the logs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Crisco 1492, thanks for taking the time. Just to be clear, the article was recreated 46 minutes after it was deleted, not one day—almost immediately, in fact. I gather that you feel this wouldn't make a difference, but let's at least describe the time scale correctly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed, per Crisco 1492's assessment that this does indeed count as a new article; the original review scanted many areas, including the "within policy" criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Sparklism czar ⨹ 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps I should explain my position here. This was, in fact, my first ever attempt at a DYK review, undertaken as a good faith QPQ review when I made my first ever DYK submission here. I'm a complete DYK novice, and what appeared to be a simple article to review here turned out to be more complex than I thought. Other contributors to this discussion clearly have the experience in this area that I lack, and I think it's best all round if I strike my original review and sit out the remainder of the discussion. Thanks for the ping back here, Czar - I'll watch the rest of the discussion with interest as part of my ongoing learning. — sparklism hey! 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- full review needed czar ⨹ 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Following the above discussion, new enough after deletion (17 December) and long enough (~2k chars). Sourced with no apparent copyvio. QPQ done. Small gripe about the hook: PayPal#Criticism and this article both state that Paypal screwed up other crowdfunding campaigns that year. Maybe say that it was one of many crowdfunding disputes so that it's not undue? Fuebaey (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- If anyone's having trouble reviewing, there's a criteria checklist you can go through everytime you click on 'edit this page' on a DYK nomination template. It (annoyingly) forces you to scroll down before you can edit the template, but saves you from having to consult WP:DYK all the time. Should (generally) be fine if you tick off the list while reviewing. Fuebaey (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey, are you saying it's undue because it was not the sole reason for the policy reform? If so, does the hook even insinuate that? How else would you suggest phrasing it? czar ⨹ 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it implies that on its own but the way I read it after going through the article was: 'incident causes company to change policy' rather than 'several similar incidents cause company to change policy'. Could you maybe add a word or two to clarify the event in the article? Fuebaey (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey, are you saying it's undue because it was not the sole reason for the policy reform? If so, does the hook even insinuate that? How else would you suggest phrasing it? czar ⨹ 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps I should explain my position here. This was, in fact, my first ever attempt at a DYK review, undertaken as a good faith QPQ review when I made my first ever DYK submission here. I'm a complete DYK novice, and what appeared to be a simple article to review here turned out to be more complex than I thought. Other contributors to this discussion clearly have the experience in this area that I lack, and I think it's best all round if I strike my original review and sit out the remainder of the discussion. Thanks for the ping back here, Czar - I'll watch the rest of the discussion with interest as part of my ongoing learning. — sparklism hey! 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Sparklism czar ⨹ 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)