Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 19: Difference between revisions

19 December 2022

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A "clear majority" did not emerge from the discussion. There were 12 votes for Delete and 10 for Keep by my count: the discussion should have been relisted at the very least, also considering that the article was significantly changed over the course of the discussion. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close contains a reasonable finding of consensus based around a prevailing policy-based view that the coverage isn't significant. All of the delete !votes were centered on this argument and translate to a cohesive collective will that the article be deleted, while the minority delete arguments are more fragmented, comprising various unresolved objections, or are attempts to gloss over the key problem that is SIGCOV. Semantics of the close regarding "clear majority" (an observable 50% + 1 majority is also a "clear majority") are irrelevant. Considering the number of participants and the volume of what was written, the discussion had more than (more than more than) a sufficient degree of resolution not to require relisting. —Alalch E. 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comment. Because of the amount of discussion, I created a spreadsheet to track the positions taken and how they were supported, so I think I have more accurate numbers. There were 13 editors explicitly supporting deletion, all citing policy-based reasons (typically WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:NCORP). Four editors supported merge as their primary position; three of these also said the subject lacked notability, giving the same reasons as the pro-delete editors. There were 10 editors who supported keeping, although two of these did not cite policy-based reasons and one argued that notability guidelines are "advisory". Even without discounting any of the non-policy arguments, there were 16 editors saying the subject did not have enough significant coverage to support notability. That's what I meant by "clear majority" – apologies that I wasn't more clear about that specifically. I considered relisting, but in reading the later comments, it was clear that the frequent participants had solidified positions and the discussion was becoming personalized. (Also, an AfD that has its own talk page discussion is usually a bad sign.) Contra the comment about the article changing during the discussion, there were multiple comments reaffirming previous positions, and final day comments were trending for deletion. So a relist did not seem necessary or beneficial. --RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge or no consensus Firstly, the article shouldn't have been nominated for a second time only six weeks after the first. Now that the discussion has happened though I think it would be beneficial to preserve the content in the page history and allow a merge as many editors argued for. Garuda3 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the only logical conclusion based on the discussion and our policies and guidelines. An admin could easily provide the history of the article in draft or userspace if someone wants to merge; that's a non-argument. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Disclosure: I voted "Delete" in the AfD. Some of the Keep votes were truly off-the-wall. We've got one argument (which I see was eventually struck), Weak Keep for the simple fact that it was a DYK article. Another one is Please keep this nice article. It's well-written and has lots of sources. Deletion would be pointless and silly after all the work that went into it. Then there's Strong keep: has long-lasting notable coverage in reliable publications. Nobody's arguing that the sources aren't reliable. The arguments are that they're not WP:SIGCOV. Those are different things. And, Strong keep: Based on the whole discussion. Enough words are said already, which doesn't even attempt to make a policy-based argument. Neither does Keep What a mess. This article was kept at AfD six weeks ago. You don't get to just keep nominating until you get the result you want. I'm not saying all the Keep !votes are that bad; there were some cogent arguments made which discussed specific sources with respect to the notability guidelines. But if we're going to go down the !vote-counting path, let's at least acknowledge that some of the keeps deserve to be zero-weighted. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: article was renominated a short time after a previous keep vote, and was the beginning and middle of a string of hounding attacks, with canvassing editors to participate to delete. On these bases alone, not to mention the unclear consensus, a new vote needs to be held in a few months. ɱ (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My answer to article was renominated a short time after a previous keep vote is that the first AfD was so obviously defective that my first thought was that I was going to bring it to DRV. Once the new AfD got going, that was no longer necessary. But here we are anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, I'd consider this AfD the most defective vote or discussion I've ever seen, anywhere. That is why we are here. ɱ (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Gosh, I'd have bet you'd say Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment is the most defective vote or discussion you've ever seen, anywhere. EEng 02:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (as a delete !voter in the AfD). Obviously I believe that the closer correctly interpreted the consensus, not only in simple numeric terms but also in giving less weight to those who argued from a non-policy based position. I actually fully support throwing away the rules sometimes when it makes sense; but this is an ordinary doughnut shop with no significant coverage at all - not the hill I would personally choose to die on. Thparkth (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without commenting on the closure, I just wanted to thank RL0919 for taking on the close. I read through the entire discussion yesterday and it was clear to me that no matter what the closure decision was, it would end up at DRV. Both sides were pretty entrenched. No admin likes being summoned here so I am grateful for your willingness to assess the discussion and render a verdict on the status of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Very brave indeed. And I'm taking up a collection for his burial after he's torn limb from limb. EEng 00:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I didn't express an opinion in the AfD discussion. My first reaction was surprise that the article wasn't relisted as it appeared to be a close call rather than a clear majority. However, I accept the AfD closer's more detailed explanation for the close and for not relisting. I don't see a convincing reason, so far, to overturn. Rupples (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge a "delete as non-notable" vote and a merge or redirect vote are essentially the same (especially considering the closer admitted to including ATD votes when considering the “delete” crowd was a “clear majority”), with the only difference being that there is a suitable target identified in the latter case. Here a suitable target was identified (Pike Place Market) and the delete voters did not oppose merging. Due to the length of the identified target, the best course of action in my opinion is a redirect with a selective merge of content. Frank Anchor 03:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the policy/guideline-based arguments are clearly stronger for deletion. As I commented at the AfD, adding content to another article by rewriting from sources is compatible with deletion, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline).
  • Most of the sources are still available at the AfD, and there was an incentive to post the best ones there.
  • Writing a sentence or two using a few of the best sources would probably be easier than trimming the article and its many sources. Alalch E. made a similar comment at the closer's talk page.
  • Rewriting avoids a WP:Merge and delete (essay) situation. If consensus decides to remove the text, the incoming redirect is allowed to be deleted based on the common WP:Redirects for discussion rationale "not mentioned at/in target" and WP:RDELETE 2 (confusing).

  Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mashhad News

Al Mashhad News (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mashhad_News was deleted without a consensus. Please could you restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yubabaogino (talk • contribs)

• It's usual to discuss your concerns with the administrator who deleted the article before coming here, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Can you explain why? Stifle (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own close. No policy based argument was made to keep. Long history of COI, UPE. Should probably be salted. Star Mississippi 14:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse in absence of material objections. An in-blanco statement about the reading of consensus with no specific fault being found has no bearing here. Based on the discussion, the reading of consensus that was made seems very reasonable to me. —Alalch E. 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but with a few comments:
  • The closer did correctly note that there was a rough consensus.
  • The minimal response really called for a Soft Delete, and the close should be changed to one, which will only permit the appellant to submit a draft for review, or create another article that will be deleted a third time.
  • I disagree with User:Star Mississippi only as to whether to salt at this time. Give the appellant one more change, but only if they answer forthrightly whether they have conflict of interest.
  • Does the appellant have a conflict of interest? If no answer, close this and salt it. If the answer is yes, close this and salt it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD closed as Soft Delete (which are essentially PRODs) so that wasn't an option here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think we need SALT is creator refuses to accept/use draft space. Besides the deletions, it has been draftified twice. There is rough consensus that this isn't appropriate right now. It can go through AfC and if an experienced editor feels it ready, it can be unSALTED. Otherwise I agree. Star Mississippi 01:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Either the appellant is a paid editor, or they are acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]