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]

  Nope, this one takes the cake. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 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]

  +1 Valereee (talk) 19:40, 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]

  @Frank Anchor. Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding your comment, but are you saying something along the lines of: if one's opinion in an AfD discussion is Delete, one should always give a reason why Merge is unacceptable where a target article has been suggested, otherwise a Delete !vote should be interpreted as Merge? Rupples (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ATDs such as merge and redirect should always be given strong consideration when a suitable target is identified. In this case a target was suggested and nobody objected to it. I believe User:Jclemens put it best by saying anti-consensus is needed to reject an ATD and that simply wasn’t there. Frank Anchor 23:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Three deletes were added after the merge recommendations. One interpretation is that those participants saw, considered, and rejected that outcome. I responded to Jclemens below. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It can not be assumed that the three late delete voters considered and rejected the idea of a merge. Most voters do not read an entire AFD (especially one of this length with so many side-discussions going on). They simply add their opinion and move on. What is known is the voters did not explicitly reject the idea of a merge in their votes. Further, as the closer stated already, the delete and ATD votes were considered together as consensus to not keep, implying that there was little difference in the two outcomes. Frank Anchor 14:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely. If a merge was raised, and no one said "delete and don't merge" (or redirect), then that is the policy-based consensus per WP:ATD, regardless of the number of people opining delete without addressing the possibilities of ATDs raised. Of course, this presumes no speedy deletion criterion (attack, copyvio, promo, etc.) applies, which is not the case here. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 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]

• Overturn to merge per 1) Frank Anchor's cogent argument: ATD's don't need consensus, they need anti-consensus to be rejected, and no one seriously argued that other than a comment that all of Pike Place Market needed an overhaul. and 2) per RENOM not being followed. The entire AfD is tainted by a failure to follow best practices. This isn't a G10-11-12 situation here--this is an organization that pretty clearly met the GNG, but is being held to a stricter standard just because it is a business. There's no pressing reason to ignore the prior AfD result. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Jclemens, this is the part I still don't get: that it "pretty clearly met the GNG", but somehow that doesn't cut it. I have been admonished for suggesting that GNG should take precedence over the more specific notability guidelines, and I guess rightly so, since others have alluded to a recent major decision. Is there any chance you (or anyone else) could link me to 'that discussion so I can be brought up to speed? Thanks, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Kingoflettuce, I may be able to answer that: The SNG section of WP:N was significantly changed last year after an RfC (the change). AFAICT this didn't significantly affect how WP:NCORP is applied. NCORP has been seen as different from other SNGs for a while because it's just a hardened version of GNG, designed to prevent an uncontrollable accumulatation of low quality content about organizations (These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.). When companies are concerned, GNG effectively applies through NCORP, instead of NCORP primarily providing objective scenarios where existence of appropriate sourcing can be presumed, which is in practical terms seen as an alternative route. The extra layer of strictness within NCORP can not be eschewed. There is no alternative route for organizations. —Alalch E. 13:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alalch E. Thanx! The "passing GNG" but still being deleted is new to me, guess F&B and NCORP weren't too in my wheelhouse to begin with. I personally find this bar much too strict for most F&B outlets (like this one!), and I do wish we could just use our collective common sense to weed out those gaming the rules. How often do you get articles on independent doughnut stands with close to 8000 quality characters and some 40 painstakingly-assembled sources? Meanwhile some random secondary school in the middle of nowhere must get its own article no matter how poor the prose or sourcing is, just because. Oh well! 😂 KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Jclemens, please support your ATD rationale with citations. "Anti-consensus" seems to be novel phrasing in this context. Searching for "anti-consensus" (without quotes matched anti- or consensus alone) in the User:, User talk:, Wikipedia:, and Wikipedia talk: spaces returned 355 results. Skimming them, the most common occurrences were objectionable anti-consensus behavior being reported at noticeboards or warned at user talk pages. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Flatscan: I believe I can answer that, because it's perfectly clear to me. By saying "anti-consensus" he simply meant consensus. A consensus that is not a consensus to do as proposed but a consensus not to do as proposed (for example a consensus to keep is an "anti-consensus" WRT deletion; that is different from there not being a consensus to delete, but also there not being a consensus to keep, which renders "no consensus"). Regards —Alalch E. 10:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens, which sources met GNG? Valereee (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Not suprised that this dreadful article has come to DRV. Real questions must be asked why this passed GA, why it was created in the first place. It was simply one the worst articles I've ever came across. scope_creep^Talk 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability issues aside, surely you jest when you say it's "one of the worst articles" you've seen. You musn't have seen a lot of articles here then (and I thought you did 1000s of AfDs...) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This would have been best closed as either merge or no consensus. I saw no !votes that made a case why a merge is wrong. Relisting was also possible, but I don't think it would help. I just don't see this reaching consensus for deletion. And there is certainly enough material for a paragraph in another article. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the nominator has a point. There wasn't a clear majority. We should strike the words "a clear majority" and replace them with "a rough consensus". With that amendment I would endorse.—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't want to change it while the DRV is open, but I have no problem making that wording adjustment after, assuming it isn't moot due to DRV changing the result anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the arguments made, there actually is a clear majority of participants who made policy-based contributions. It's only if you're vote-counting that it doesn't look like a clear majority. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD discussion was absolutely maddening and there were so many side discussions, mischaracterizations, and editor behavior issues (bludgeoning, canvassing). I think I'm following a dozen or so discussions about issues which emerged from this debate. Honestly, feels like an unfair trial (yes, I realize this just comes across as me whining about the result). I was surprised to see the discussion closed when there was no natural stall and votes were still coming in right up to the end. I'd prefer to see the page at least restored and redirected because the article history/markup should be preserved. Overturning to merge seems way more appropriate to me than outright deletion of a Good article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Much as I think the sourcing was inadequate to support a stand-alone article, I agree that a redirect to Pike Place Market makes sense. It's standard practice to redirect with the history intact when a logical target exists. The history should only be hidden when something like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violations require it, and that's not the case here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the policy/guideline basis for retaining the history? WP:Editing policy (policy, contains WP:PRESERVE) does not mention history. This justification must be weighed against the AfD's consensus to delete as determined by WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus (guideline, shortcut WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) and WP:Consensus (policy). Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Flatscan I guess WP:ATD-R. But mostly I based my statement on my personal experience of working WP:AFD and WP:DRV for many years, before I drifted off into other areas. On rare occasion you see people at AFD specifically arguing "Delete, do not redirect", but in the face of a reasonable redirect target and lack of a compelling reason (such as COPYVIO or BLP) which requires the previous content to be hidden, that's a difficult argument to advance. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding ATD-R, I wrote WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence#Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion. I participate in few AfDs, but I occasionally review them using searches. My impression is that merge and redirect outcomes usually follow the vote counts, with relatively few having substantial delete support. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to either "no consensus" or "merge", but give the closer a medal for finally putting this miserable "discussion" to an end. Actual outcome aside, it's not sitting well with me that inexcusable conduct during deletion discussions is allowed to stand or is indirectly rewarded. (Thanks to those who did try to intervene, but it seemed too little too late, with little to deter editors from reverting to the same type of behavior in the future.) Per the Arb Com discussion in July, "no bludgeoning" is a principle we should be adhering to; there was also canvassing, not to mention walls of text and personal attacks that deterred others from joining the discussion in the first place. If each !vote in the discussion were weighted based on civility, it seems like the end result would look quite different. Merging the content seems like a fair outcome; from what I recall, the few !merge voters were also the most conciliatory in tone and seemed most inclined to help drive consensus, which ultimately is the point of AfD. If we really want to increase participation at AfD, it's not ok to keep pretending that these out-of-control discussions are just a "normal" part of Wikipedia editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Because restoring the article is in fact promoting "playing rough and on the person" in AfDs. And that is not what we need. The Banner talk 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The closer clearly weighed this carefully, and a "clear majority" can easily emerge from a simple majority when multiple !voters don't actually make arguments supported by policy. I do think this could be merged into Pike Place Market, and an AfD closing as delete in no way prevents that. Like others I thank RL0919 for stepping up. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Small clarification: adding content to Pike Place Market can be implemented in two ways that aren't being distinguished. Copying – the typical way to merge a non-deleted page – from the deleted Daily Dozen Doughnut Company requires restoration, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD). Rewriting from sources, which I suggested above, does not. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn When !vote counts are that close and the majority direction is established by 2 votes at the end of the discussion, the conversation is not close. Respect to the admin, and respect to the process, but this is not a discussion outcome that I would call either "clear" or "majority". This discussion raised several interesting conversation directions that could have been explored more. Here are some issues that I saw raised and unresolved in this discussion:
  • Complaints about the source table. AfD discussions are supposed to examine reasons for keeping an article, not highlighting reasons to delete. If an article meets inclusion criteria then it is kept, regardless of how long someone's list of complaints are.
  • No outreach for comment to WikiProject LGBT. There were multiple sources about this venue's involvement in a gay rights activism event which led to policy change in a city center. The conversation would have been less tangled to refer this to a subject matter community with experience and stake in evaluating these sources.
  • There were new and unusual arguments made for special inclusion criteria. We had citations to sources from notable experts with Wikipedia articles. While these sources were not conventional, I found the novel argument compelling. My view of the situation was that it had 1 in 1000 media coverage, and I said as much. This was not a run of the mill case with commonplace evaluation.
  • Conduct issues were raised about hounding and personal attacks. There was no urgent reason to nominate a related set of articles for deletion all at the same time to divide attention when obviously a group of people had interest in commenting on this case. Calling for a little crowd control and moderation could have been helpful.
  • Lack of respect and acknowledgement to the established Good Article status. This article went through a quality control process and got a respected designation of WP:GA. When sending GA articles to deletion then GA reviewers should get invited to the discussion, either to defend their review process or to check out what went wrong. GA and AfD should rarely meet, and when they do, there should be some exploration as to why.
  • Merge does not work. There is a lot of content here which is WP:UNDUE everywhere except in this article. If there is to be a merge, then there needs to be some discussion about how that looks because I do not have faith that people suggesting this have thought it through. Most likely a merge would be a redirect and a one-line mention in the proposed parent article, which is a sad fate for an article which previously passed GA.

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, GA doesn't assess notability. (AFAIK neither does FA, but it's likely anything with enough RS for FA would pass GNG, so that's likely moot.) GA reviewers do not check notability, so why we would ask them to defend their review process?

Ditto DYK, but the reason this article ended up at AfD is because it was nominated for DYK and someone during the review process looked at it and serendipitously thought...wait, are we sure this is notable? Valereee (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA, FA, and DYK should assess notability. If they do not, then we should take this article to those boards as a case study for establishing a rule that they start checking notability. Passing GA, FA, or DYK should be evidence of notability - our various review processes should align and not be at odds. If they are at odds then the Wikipedia quality control process has a problematic inefficiency which needs addressing. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely as a regular at DYK, assessing notability is beyond many reviewers, some of whom have 100 edits or fewer. DYK noms are assessed in many cases by some of the most callow reviewers on the project. We are the intro to peer review. I do not think we want DYK reviewers' assessments of notability to be seen as evidence of notability.

If you think promoters and movers-to-queue need to be responsible for assessing notability for each of 8 entries per set (8-16 per day), you can certainly propose that at WT:DYK. I'll warn you that the average promoter has been depressed over their workload for a couple of years, now, and that admins usually need to be begged in, so adding a possibly hourslong assessment into each of 8 hook checks every 12-24 hours? Not likely to be popular. Valereee (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Propose_to_add_notability_to_GA_criteria Bluerasberry (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, though I think it is also worth asking, if we are able to write an article that reaches good or featured status about a subject, is it actually beneficial to our readers to be strict about notability criteria? After all, notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and there is always WP:IAR. Garuda3 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting we should include non-notable subjects? Because there are 7 billion people in the world. Valereee (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You woudn't be able to write more than a stub on most people (if you avoided WP:SPSs), let alone a good or featured article. Garuda3 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once we don't require multiple instances of sigcov in independent RS, which is how we currently assess notability? I assure you, I have multiple mentions -- HS yearbook, local papers, alma mater, etc. Let's IAR that. I'll upload an image to commons. Valereee (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing against requiring reliable independent sources. My point is that if you can write a "good" or "featured" article on a subject, using the stricter NCORP guideline or some other argument like ROUTINE is perhaps not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If someone else writes an article on you and it includes reliable independent sources, you won't see me arguing to delete it. Garuda3 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Ms. X is a big deal in her hometown of West Union, Ohio. She was a cheerleader in high school, she's the organizer of the local July 4 parade, she's been on the school board for 20 years, several times as chair, and she's run for town council twice. She runs a local insurance agency that sponsors the annual Festival of Lights. Her apple pie has taken a blue ribbon at the county fair three times over the past 30 years. Over the years she's received a ton of coverage in the Adams County Informer, an independent reliable source with a circulation of 5000. Multiple instances of significant coverage in that source. I can write an article that details her early life and education, career, and personal life, and I could totally write it to GA standards. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / Request: I don't know who I'm appealing to here (User:RL0919?), but something about this AfD is just not sitting well with me and I'd like to put forth a request which I hope my fellow editors will consider a reasonable compromise. I can accept the community's rejection of a standalone Wikipedia article. What bothers me is how the community rejected the article and completely disregarded the time and effort many editors put into the entry via outright deletion.
  I'm not asking for article restoration, but I'm politely insisting the article history and talk page history be restored for future reference. In my opinion, a merge vote would have rid the project of a standalone page yet conceded that at least some of the content actually had value for Wikipedia.
  Can we not all agree that some of the content could be useful at Pike Place Market and/or Economy Market? Can we not all agree that preserving the markup, article history, and talk page might actually benefit the project? Can we not agree Daily Dozen might qualify for an entry in the future?
  Additionally, I want to note that the Daily Dozen article and AfD discussion has been referenced in many other discussions throughout Wikipedia. Editors who didn't follow very closely may not realize how discussions splintered across dozens of pages, including article talk pages, user talk pages, other AfD discussions, project pages related to editor behavior, etc. I'm clearly not alone in noting how problematic the AfD discussion was. I think article history restoration is necessary for the sake of future reference and transparency. I don't often put my foot down or advocate for myself, but I feel strongly that a consensus of merge would be the best compromise here. I don't expect any action here but I figured I'd submit a formal request and see if any editors support.
  Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm not sure TDD will qualify in the future, preservation of the history via a redirect makes sense to me and is I believe what @RoySmith also is discussing above. Full disclosure: merge !voter who isn't particularly fussed about the outcome, but the tone of that discussion left a lot to be desired. Star Mississippi 03:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this DRV is closed without restoring the history, you may file at WP:Requests for undeletion to receive it outside of article space. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  AB, you know I respect your work, so I say this as a friend: if you want to spend your free time writing about a doughnut shop, that's entirely on you. It's not reasonable to expect that an article be valued by the community simply because it was written. I'm not sure that this doughnut shop is WP:DUE for inclusion in any other article, but if it is, nothing in the AFD process prevents that from happening. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Levivich: I understand, but that's not the point. I'm asking about article history restoration, not content restoration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can request userspace restoration and thereby get the article history. But should it be a redirect so others can get the history? No. In my opinion, a merge vote would have rid the project of a standalone page yet conceded that at least some of the content actually had value for Wikipedia. I'm not saying this to be mean, but in the hopes you will "take it on board" as they say: the consensus here is that the content did not have value for Wikipedia. Can we not all agree that some of the content could be useful at Pike Place Market and/or Economy Market? Can we not all agree that preserving the markup, article history, and talk page might actually benefit the project? Can we not agree Daily Dozen might qualify for an entry in the future? The consensus answer is no, no, and no. Look: I can write an article about every pizza shop in my hometown using local coverage and brief mentions. It'll pass V and be well written and contain accurate information. But it's not a proper topic for an encyclopedia. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean we should keep it. Doughnut shops are no different than athletes in this regard. The outcome here should be that you learn from the experience: that you recognize your own notability standards are lower than the community's consensus, and that you risk spending time on work that will end up deleted. There are so many Portland and food-related topics that could use your attention, but this doughnut shop wasn't one of them. I'm sorry that your time spent on this article was wasted, but you're the one who wasted it. The fact that someone wrote something doesn't make it inherently valuable; the history isn't valuable; many of the sources cited basically aren't valuable to Wikipedia, they're not independent RS SIGCOV of anything encyclopedic. IMO, every article should start with two (three is better) GNG sources; that's how an author knows the article won't later be deleted. If the two or three best sources about a business are all local coverage, if there is no non-local independent RS SIGCOV, then we shouldn't write an article about that business. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply. I've submitted a request to have the article history and talk page restored to draft space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The issue at DRV is whether the closer came to a reasonable assessment of the consensus of the community. Sometimes there are two or more possible closes by the closer that would be reasonable. This was such a case. The closer has explained how they interpreted the input from the community, and what their thinking was. We don't usually get as clear an explanation as we did here. Delete was a valid conclusion, and so should be endorsed. No Consensus might have been a valid conclusion also, but that isn't what we are reviewing. I agree that the AFD is a mess, and sometimes messes need closing. No error by the closer; a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (consensus to delete). Claims of significant coverage in 2 or 3 sources were overwhelmed by source analysis showing that SIGCOV was not met. On the ATD to merge, this is undermined by the fact that the topic is not mentioned at the target. On WP:RENOM being not followed, I reconcile that AfD2 is strong evidence that AfD1 should be declared Overturned (note, NAC-er User:Coolperson177, you declared a consensus on the basis of many very poor !votes, understandable, but something to learn from). Allow draftification, requiring that WP:THREE is followed on any attempt to have it returned to mainspace, and not before six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• End this drama. I agree with SmokeyJoe's analysis. For all the discussion, there were not two sources that met GNG, and that's the end of it. The source analysis wasn't rebutted by those voting to keep the article, neither by the numbers nor by the arguments. In any AFD, when keep !voters can't say "[1] and [2] are independent RS SIGCOV", they've lost the argument, and that's when you see all the other arguments start being made, often focused on the quality of the article or the conduct of delete !voters, rather than on identifying two GNG sources. Relisting would have been pointless considering this was already the 2nd AFD in as many months: if there were two GNG sources, they'd have been posted by now. Time to bring this to an end. Endorse. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not asking for a relist. I'm asking for article history and talk page restoration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp, my request was denied, at least for now. Looks like I have to wait until this discussion ends (not sure why but ok!). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another Believer, yes, userfication or draftification, with the full history, will be uncontroversial, but not while this DRV is still running. To keep things all in one place, eg not spilling onto the draft_talk page or a premature AfC submission, everything else has to wait for this DRV to be formally closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I understand. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - for the record, I did not take part in the original AfD. There was nothing wrong with the admin's analysis and reasoning for their close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Completely uninvolved here, but that's how I would close it. The arguments to keep are substantively weaker, and a few in particular should be given no weight at all. I confess I'm at a loss as to why a donut stand should be this contentious. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:26, 22 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 deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 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]

  Further desire for SALT. This editor with No payments or loyalties also created Al Mashhad, Al Mashhad Channel which had hallmarks of UPE. I've given a final warning. Star Mississippi 15:35, 21 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]

  I am a neutral Wikipedia editor. No payments or loyalties. I had previously repeatedly stated this in my talk page Sir (Yubabaogino (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  Comment to appellant - Stop acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and salt mainspace title only almost exactly per User:Star Mississippi. This gives the appellant has the opportunity to develop an article in draftspace and answer to any COI concerns while removing the cycle of creating and deleting this article. Frank Anchor 16:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]