Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 24
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I happened to come across the article Best & Co. yesterday and noticed that the content seemed to be discussing two entirely separate retail chains that happened to share the same name. (Maybe they are actually connected in some way; this was not established by the article.) Since there is no reason for two unrelated topics to share an article, I moved the content about the newer chain to Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997). It was immediately nominated for speedy-deletion due to A7, which I contested on the grounds that the content had been added to the other article presumably in good faith, had thus not been intended as its own article, and it seemed fair to allow at least the opportunity to establish its own notability. It does not seem fair to me that whomever added the content should possibly return and see that the content was moved to a separate article and then immediately deleted on the grounds of not being good enough for a separate article. I also note that (I believe) the article did mention the brand is "known" for its trunk shows and was discussed in at least one book, which seems to me to be enough of a "credible claim of significance or importance" to grant it at least a prod or an AFD. I expressed these points to deleting admin User:Vegaswikian, which was unproductive; he/she added the content back to Best & Co., which I re-removed because putting the content back to where it doesn't belong certainly doesn't seem to solve the problem as far as I can tell. I know nothing about the brand myself except what was in the article; I would not oppose a prod nor would I defend the article in an AFD. I just think the process so far has not given the topic a fair hearing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
*Restore and list at AfD having seen the arguments below, I think it is fair to take this to AfD, so that a consensus can be found. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I contacted the closing administrator, but he considers that his decision was the more appropriate. He closed the discussion as a no consensus, stating that he evaluated that one of the sources, Comic Book Resources (CBR), used in keep arguments, had respectable coverage of the topic and was reliable, and, for that reason, he gave equal weight to keep votes. However, as I pointed out to him, that CBR was a reliable third-party source was not in contention but that it was the only reliable source that treated the topic and that it does not give reception or significance for the fictional plot-point or discusses the plot-point in detail since it merely repeats part of the plot. So, I believe that with a single source, the keep arguments did not address the lack of notability per the WP:GNG because lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic and mere republications of a single source do not always constitute multiple works. I also commented to the closing administrator that I feel that his rationale ignored the other concerns raised in the AfD. Keep arguments did not address the WP:PLOT concerns and barely touched the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH concerns. These are also part of WP:DEL#REASON along with lack of notability. There was also a simple majority of delete !votes, 6 delete !votes vs. 5 keep !votes. As stated in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy, and I believe that, since keep arguments only pointed out to CBR as a reliable source to address the concerns regarding the WP:GNG and did not provided multiple reliable sources or properly addressed the other concerns, the strength of argument and underlying policy was with deletion arguments, which were a majority. The closing administrator believes that this was more a disagreement in how policy should apply while I believe that the deletion arguments showed that the article does not meet the policies and should have been deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Bertieri4 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC) The article was deleted because of lack of sufficient sourcing in news and scholarly references. However the Hydration for Health Initiative is a notable scientific organisation for healthcare professionals with the aim to communicate the fundamental need for healthcare policymakers and practitioners to proactively provide healthy hydration advice. The initiative activities and messages are based on published scientific evidence. In addition, the initiative is cited in the November/ December 2010 issue of the Journal of Nutrition, http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/toc/2010/11001. Other papers have been submitted to journals since its establishment in 2009, but these have not yet been published due to the lengthy peer-review process. The initiative has an educational remit and is not a promotional resource as it does not promote bottled water or Danone Waters mineral water brands. Reference to Danone Waters is intended solely for transparency. An expert group of international researchers and academics - recognised and respected in the field of nutrition, hydration, physiology, medicine, noteworthy in their own right - oversee the activities of the initiative. The Initiative is not limited to the website, but it organises annual scientific meetings attended by hundreds of physicians and the proocedings of these meetings are published in notable peer-reviewed journals; it also develops educational and information materials for use by healthcare professionals. Some of these materials have been reviewed and approved for use by the International Society of Nephrology. The reason why such information is not widely available on the web is because it is restricted to healthcare professional use. Please consider reinstating the entry and I can modify the article to address some of the concerns about commercial product promotion. I have already discussed this option with the admin, and he advised me to bring my reasons to this forum.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
So far unable to reach consensus with deleting admin. Reinstatement of article would permit the inclusion of additional refs by editors to confirm notability. Initial copyright issues were misinterpreted and have been addressed at Suspected copyright violations/2011-05-13. Trevj (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |