Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 28

Diamond Standard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deleting admin, David Gerard, misapplied WP:G4. The new article is substantially different from the deleted version, and the reason for the prior deletion no longer applies. All crypto-related and interview-based references were removed, and the subject was recently substantially and independently covered in The Wall Street Journal. Following 18 months of Bloomberg, Fox, Royal Gazette and other coverage, and the subject surely achieves WP:GNG. Nixie9✉ 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was substantially the same as the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Standard for being based on interviews. Nixie9 recreated it based on a new reference from WSJ! ... which was another interview. That is, the precise sort of reference the article was deleted for. If he did not realise the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview, he may not be competent to assess sources suitably.

In that AFD, Nixie9 repeatedly just failed to understand how everyone else was judging sources.

The editor has edited on no other topics in the past year. (Contributions, deleted contributions.) At User_talk:Nixie9#November_2019, I asked Nixie9 if he had a commercial conflict of interest, and he said no. However, he did go on to claim a conspiracy of administrators against him to delete the article.

I suggested that if Nixie really wanted the article, that he create it through AFC, and not base any of the sources on interviews.

Nixie9 has created this same article repeatedly, and it was deleted three times before today by multiple admins. A previous DRV suggested salting the article. Today was the fourth deletion, and that's why I salted it against recreation. I have suggested that Nixie9 please consider that perhaps he's doing this wrong - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note also that Diamond Standard, and Nixie9's edits on it, are blockchain-related, so are under the restrictions detailed at WP:GS/Crypto - he was previously notified of the restrictions in late 2019, but promptly deleted the notice from his talk page - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• David Gerard brings a lot of unwarranted opinion, defensiveness, accusations, and hyperbole to this discussion. Baggage that should lead him to let others take the lead on the DRV and AfD. The company is not a crypto company. As noted in a front page, filling 3/4 of a page, WSJ article, the company has approval for CFTC licensed futures and options, and an active SEC filing for an ETF on the NYSE. Not that DG bothered to learn anything before rapid-deleting. I suggest that admins evaluate for themselves. Nixie9✉ 13:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s. If the subject is not WP:GNG, why does DG feel it necessary to tar me with conspiracy theory claims, denigration about posting frequency, and insinuation about connections? I've created dozens of articles over 8 years, and now I have a job. I find this particular subject fascinating, because DIAMONDS!. Nixie9✉ 14:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nixie9 I suggest limiting the discussion to the merits of the article, and not to accusations or comments about other editors here. David Gerard is a very experienced, long term editor with a good reputation here. He may be mistaken in some cases, as all of us may, but I am confident he is doing what he thinks best to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you will do your best to the same goal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as Draft I was notified of this DRV on my talk page by Nixie9, I suppose because I commented in the AfD on a previous version of this article -- which I had completely forgotten. But since I am pretty regular in reading and commenting on DRV posts, I am sure I would have seen this and commented in any case. I looked at the most recent deleted version (and I will be happy to do a temp undelete if any non-admin wants to see it). Many of the sources are indeed interviews or seem to be based largely on info from the company, and are therefore not independent, and should not count towards the GNG. (I do not, however, think it fair to describe most of them as "Churnlism".) The recent WSJ article is behind a paywall. I can only see the opening lines, but they do not seem like the start of an interview piece. It is at https://www.wsj.com/articles/easy-diamond-trading-set-to-be-available-for-first-time-11600680611 in case anyone has access. The royal gazette article dated 23 Sept 2020 refers to and quotes the WSJ piece several times. It does not make it sound like an interview piece. Note that merely quoting a company spokesperson or CEO does not make an article an interview if there is also independent reporting. However, even if the WSJ article is considered to be fully independent, that is just one source. I am not sure that the other cited sources in the deleted article are enough to clearly pass the GNG. It seems that the company Diamond Standard has yet to start full operatrions. When it does so, there may well be significant additional coverage. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. My suggestion is that the deleted article be restored and promptly moved to Draft, until such time as development of the draft can convince an uninvolved admin, or a future DRV discussion, to unsalt the title in mainspace. The draft may be put through the AfC process, indeed I think that would be a good idea, but that should not be mandatory. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft is good - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have briefly read the (paywalled) WSJ article linked above and echo the concerns about its independence; it does seem quite heavily dependent on an interview with the founder. I agree with DES and David Gerard that restoring as Draft, and a more careful consideration of sources there prior to (potentially) moving to mainspace, seems a good way forward. Martinp (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just read it too. Isn't there just one quote from the founder? Everything else is sourced to external folks AFAICT. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm away from the computer where I have a WSJ subscription, so I can't check again, but I recall an unsourced first paragraph, a clear quote/paraphrase from founder in 2nd or 3rd para giving the impression that he is the primary source for the article, and little evidence of journalistic independence. I'm sorry, I won't have access again until post-DRV closure. Martinp (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Paragraph 2 is sourced to the company. Paragraph 5 has a quote from the CEO. The last paragraph (21 I think) is sourced to someone who has an investment in the company. The rest is either sourced to specific external people or in the author's own voice and includes things like a brief history of the world diamond market. It is by no means an "interview" with the CEO. I find with the WSJ if you just keep loading the article it will let you see it after a while... Hobit (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that it's my AFD close that's up for discussion but since Nixie9 apparently isn't contesting it I have no comments. If I am wrong feel free to point it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Jo-Jo Eumerus The issue raised by Nixie9 , seems to be whether the version recently deleted as a recreation under G4 is or is not substantially simialr to the version you deleted after the AfD or not. You might have a view on that point, and on whether the addition of the WSJ article makes a significant difference. Or, of course, you might not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, well, I went ahead and temp undeleted for the discussion. I don't have an opinion at the moment, but I'll suggest to Nixie9 that the most successful practice at DRV for cases deleted on notability grounds is to identify the three best sources for establishing notability. WilyD 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse either the AFD or the G4. Any appeal to DRV that consists mostly of insulting one of the admins will get only cursory attention. This appeal consists mostly of insulting User:David Gerard, and that isn't useful. The title isn't salted in draft space. If a draft is submitted for review, the reviewer should be given an undeleted copy of the deleted article to compare. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The WSJ article is, well, in the WSJ. And it appears to have only one quote from the founder--hardly an interview. The author, while not the biggest name in the field, writes articles that can hardly be accused of being "Churnlism" [1]. The article itself is largely the same as before, but the sourcing is now *much* better. I don't know if this would make it at AfD, but one really good source would probably have been enough to overcome deletion at the AfD. I think this is that source. Let AfD make the call. Overturn speedy, list at AfD Hobit (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy. First of all, User:David Gerard is clearly an involved administrator and should not have taken administrative action here. He proposed speedying the prior version of the article in 2019 [2]. He !voted to delete in the ensuing AFD. [3] WP:INVOLVED leaves little room for argument: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past . . . disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." This misuse of authority is compounded by the fact that his action was completely unilateral, since Gerard in effect both proposed deletion and acted on the proposal. Second, there is really no argument that the db-repost criteria were met; the recreated version added two claims of significance not found in the original article: a current IPO and listing of an associated fund on an NYSE exchange. This is a nontrivial advance beyond the claims of the deleted text, and should have defeated G4. Third, the basis cited for applying G4 is clearly inappropriate. David Gerard stated above that the major new source, "the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview". This is nonsense. Putting aside the insistence that coverage in the US's most important financial newspaper is no different from puff pieces on clickbait-heavy Internet aggregation sites, just examining the WSJ piece puts the lie to the claim of identical coverage. The WSJ piece is a bylined article by a staff reporter drawing on multiple sources, including at least two different interviews. The idea that journalism in a highly reputable publication somehow becomes unreliable or unsuitable for demonstrating notability is utterly ungrounded in policy or guideline, and makes no sense whatever in the context of building an encyclopedia. If the deleting admin does not understand this, he is all but certainly not competent to assess sources suitably. No opinion as to the underlying notability issue, but I don't think this should go to AFD until a proponent of deletion can articulate a policy-based rationale for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit creation of draft, and judge it in the usual way Looking at it . there's a reasonable chance o actual notability, and sufficient references. I share some of the skepticism bout topics in theis general area, but there can be genuine new and imporant developments. 'm not going to join in the censure directed at thegenerally excelllent of the closing admin, but a second independent evaluation would do n harm. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. The last AfD was not recent, over 6 months, and someone claims new better sources. AfD is the proper forum to resolve the question. If SNOW deleted, the G4 deleting admin may feel validated; if kept, then chided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy - (voted delete in the original AFD) - not a G4 based on the diff: it's not identical, in no small part because there are new sources like WSJ added, and other sources removed, plus text changed. It's clear these changes were intended to address the concerns at the AFD. Also, DG is WP:INVOLVED and should not be using admin tools with respect to this article. If the speedy is overturned and thereafter someone wants to take it to AFD, they can. Lev!vich 21:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Gerard was clearly WP:INVOLVED - proposed a speedy in 2019, and then !voted to delete in the 2019 AfD. If it is determined that this is G4 material let someone else delete. Lightburst (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]