Talk:Leykis 101

Proposed Deletion
This article does not met the criteria for speedy deletion, any discussions that took place were too long ago, and the article was completely different when those comments were made.

Transwiki This article is not very encylopedic, it looks like a how-to. However, wikipeida does have sister projects that are how-to's. This article should be moved there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Project 490 (talk • contribs).


 * The original AFD was Votes for deletion/"Leykis 101". As I read that AFD, the primary concern was that the content of the article was original research.  Accordingly, the question in my mind is whether reliable sources are used to write the article - cite them if they are.  (See WP:CTT for citation templates.)  If some sources are used, it will probably end up at AFD again on notability, so the question will shift to whether the article demonstrates that the topic satisfies WP:NOTE, primarily by using multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the topic.  GRBerry 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it shouldn't matter what the original reason for AFD was, right? It was deleted via AFD, and should not be recreated. It's the exact same article, with the same information. The article has now been recreated twice, one of which was created with quotes around the title to make it look different. Ckessler 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, an AFD is not a permanant bar to recreation. Notability might not have existed originally, but now does by the same standards, the old page could have been an attack page with no sources in sight to allow NPOV, etc...  The test for WP:CSD G4 is "substantially identical copy, ..., by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion ... Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject."  As a regular at deletion review, I test "substantially identical" by whether or not the new article successfully addresses the reasons for deleting in the original AfD.  I'm not alone in using that test, but of course we can differ about whether the test is met for any given article.
 * For extra bonus fun, before this copy was created, another user had opened a deletion review for this at Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29. I choose not to be the admin that sorts out this mess, as it is past my bedtime.  GRBerry 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod contest reason
No, this is still the same article, only some of the information has been removed. Ckessler 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki discussion
Strong Transwiki The consensus gathered during this article's deletion reveiw was that this article does not meet wikipedia's expections for what an article should be by reason of the article contaiting "previously deleted material", explaining it's speedy deletion by a wikipedia admin; however a secondary conesus was reached in that the article did merit being transwikied into wikipedia's sister project that is about how-to's. I strongly support transwikiing. The only thing that seemed to stop that consensus, however, was possible copyvio. Now a how-to article in general that shows Leykis 101 PLUS another method, would NOT be copyvio, it would serve more as commmentary. Leykis 101 by itself, however, is possible copyvio.

Redirect
Removal of the redirect is not vandalism, this article has gone through AFD twice, was deleted and recreated. It's copied directly from Leykis' webpage, and is merely a list, not an article. Ckessler 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)