Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Clique (song)/GA1

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Clique (song)/GA1

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Bogus GA review by a now community banned sock. Page was nominated for G5, but declined because it technically doesn't meet the G5 criteria. To be honest, I'm willing to G6 this as "unambiguously created in error" and take my lumps at the inevitable DRV, but I've decided to color within the lines and bring it here. Please see the discussion at WT:GAN about how this is holding up legitimate GA operations. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's obvious the community thinks this is a bad idea, so withdrawing the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. While this review was undoubtedly deficient, it was apparently a successful review judging by the article history and GA icon.  And the user was not banned at the time.  And it isn't total nonsense or gibberish.  Ergo, this review is still needed in the history (to explain why the article was a GA from January 2021 - present).  I recommend starting a procedural WP:GAR where the article is re-reviewed and either "kept" (read: passed For Real) or removed.  Can advertise it on the normal GAN list or the talk page if there's a concern about turnout.  SnowFire (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I believe the nom misspoke when calling the editor in question a "sock". They later engaged in sockpuppetery, but this account was the future sockmaster, not a sock.  And when this review happened, they were technically in good standing.  Anyway, even if they weren't - if it is revealed that an editor who passed a GA 5 years ago was really a sockpuppet, say, or an undisclosed paid editor - there needs to be an explanation on the books for why the article was marked a GA (even if its status was somehow false).  The chance to say "whoops this never happened" was right when the article was passed for GA.  The nominator did not refuse the promotion, and so we're stuck with this, as we would be for a paid promotion or a backroom deal promotion or the like.  As another option, a speedy-delist GAR followed by a new GAN to make Talk:Clique (song)/GA2 would probably keep the bots happy.  But philosophically, it's just a bad idea to pretend this didn't happen - it was left as a GA in good standing for too long, nearly a year.  SnowFire (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a nit: there is no fundamental difference between a sock and a sockmaster. We just call the account with the earliest creation date the master and all the others socks.  But, yes, you are correct that G5 didn't apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could be G6; it serves no legitimate purpose as a GA review and is holding up the proper placement of the nomination in the GA backlog queue. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to use of G6 to delete reviews that you don’t like. G6 should be restricted to pages with a trivial history, which this does not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the arguments at this roughly analogous MfD are even more valid here since deletion would break links (e.g. ) and leave it unclear why the article was a GA for almost a year. A GAR is an option, or it might be easier to just void the review (citing the WT:GAN consensus and/or IAR) and start afresh. In either case, deletion is not necessary, and I don't really see how retaining this page "is holding up legitimate GA operations". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see how this is holding up a legitimate process either. While we obviously want decent reviews the main issue is whether the article meets the WP:GACR. If it doesn't then lets just reassess it. Maybe if it had only just been conducted there would be a case for deleting it, but after nearly a year and no evidence of collusion (i.e. a sockpuppet passing their own article) the better option would be to just let this stand and go through the normal process. Aircorn (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Delete if bogus, but I am not convinced it is bogus, as opposed to inept. The GA process needs a way to deal with this that does not conflict with WP:Deletion Policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in the absence of a compelling WP:DELREASON. I don't really think there's a need to rehash Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1. Either procedurally delist or conduct a GAR as appropriate, but I concur with SmokeyJoe that the GA process needs a way to deal with subpar reviews that does not conflict with the deletion policy. Regards, 78.140.196.174 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.