Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 5

List of popes said to have had sex with men – Speedy deletion endorsed. I'm mostly discounting opinions expressing the view that this was an inappropriate G10 (attack page) deletion, because the deleting admin has made clear that this was an error and they meant to delete the page as A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). Among the remaining opinions we have consensus that this speedy deletion was ok as A10 or for other reasons. – Sandstein 07:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. No hate speech involved. The list specified that these were accusations. There is no way to deal with the topic of same-sex sexual behavior by popes without dealing with accusations. They are central to any discussion of the topic. To say a pope engaged in sex with a man, or men, is not negative, or not intended (by me) that way. The list does more good than harm. deisenbe (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The list was deleted under {{db-attack}}—"G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP"— which is clearly inapplicable. The Google cache shows that this was a well-sourced list sourced to encyclopedias and books. None of the people listed in the article are living people. Cunard (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion. Clearly not a WP:BLP, appears to be reasonably sourced, and not obviously hate speech. This may well fail at AfD, but I don't see how WP:G10 applies. Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (or overturn and re-CSD as A10) - G10 may not be on point, but A10 certainly is. Compare the text of this article to List of sexually active popes, from which the text is more or less copy/pasted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:A10 might apply, but then again, this might be considered a (poorly executed) case of Wikipedia:Splitting, in which case it wouldn't apply. WP:CSD says, Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.. While I agree that A10 is plausible, I don't think it goes as far as being a most obvious case, so I recommend this get sent to AfD to get a clear read of community consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:A10 applies either since this is clearly an article split. After the speedy deletion is overturned, any editor who thinks this is not a valid topic should be allowed to list it at AfD. Cunard (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be perfectly honest, I intended to delete this as an A10, and thought I had changed the rationale in the dropbox. The fact that I did not, and that the template tossed it over to G10 (as it had been nominated), seems to have caused a great deal of confusion, for which I apologize. It is obviously not a BLP, and G10 doesn't apply to the content as it stood when nominated. I have no objection to restoration, if consensus leans that way, but I think it's gonna need a new title at a minimum. If restored, I get the impression that an AFD would be forthcoming. But that's why we have a process, and that's why I should have been more careful with the deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 05:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a quick talk page message would have sorted this article out within 10 minutes. "Oh shit, yeah I screwed that up, here - I've restored it." Easy. Something to consider for next time, perhaps. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 05:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes this is exactly why we have step 1 of listing a deletion review, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a terrible article, and had multiple reasons for speedy deletion. G10 certainly is not explicitly restricted to living people, as Wikipedia:Attack page makes clear. (Indeed, Template:Db-attackorg is one of the suggested redirects.) St Anselm (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad G10 call. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be deleted, but no, it didn't meet the precise wording of CSD#G10. It is sourceable (badly, sourceable accounts of biased hearsay) and related directly to List of sexually active popes. These decisions should be made by the community, not by offended administrators. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, textbook CSD:G10. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't give a rat's flaming tookus what acronym you pick from WP:SD, pick the closest fit and toss this ridiculous BS into the furnace. Any editor who thinks "List of <important figures> rumored to be <something they find offensive>" has a place here is working in the wrong project. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Well discussed historical topic, for which there are abundant sources. The ones listed are primarily in English, but a great number could be found in other languagesalso. G10 does not apply--who or what is being abused--a group of long-deceased historical characters? Using G10 in that circumstances in nonsense. I can only characterize the 2 arguments just above by Stifle and Tarc just above as IDONTLIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you "don't like" Sexuality in Star Trek, your favorite bugaboo of an article, DGG? Tarc (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must mean some other article; I didn't participate in either of the two AfDs on that one. Surely you remember I've supported most " Whatever in some fictional work" articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this clearly isn't a G10 but is justifiable under A10 as all the content is taken from List of sexually active popes. Splits are exempt from A10, but this wasn't a split - no content was removed from the source article and the creator obviously intended the two articles to stand side by side.[1] Applying common sense the source article isn't long enough to make a split necessary and even if it was this isn't the most obvious subcategory to choose. Hut 8.5 06:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it was an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK and confusing G10 for A10 is a minor mistake, nothing can possibly gained by flooding AfD (we have more than 130 posts per day, lately) or by undoing this SD and then doing a different SD, Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid A10, and a hearty trouting for User:Deisenbe for not raising this with the deleting admin which could have avoided opening this pointless discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.