Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 5

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was speedied as G11 - Unambiguous advertising.

The article was written for the purpose of giving background information about the "Gold Mercury Awards", mentioned in many articles, see WP search.
The subject is clearly notable, as shown by a Google Book search.
The admin who deleted the article seems to consider that phrases like "ethical global governance" and "leadership consultancy" are promotional. They are just standard jargon. The awards are given to leaders who promote ethical global governance, whatever that means. Leadership consultants advise leaders. Nice work if you can get it.
There is no intention of advertising. The article does not praise or promote the NGO, or at least the original version did not. It simply describes what it does. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the admin, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), has refused to restore the article so it can be reviewed by the community at AfD, so I am defending it and my reputation as a neutral editor based on my hazy memory and the snippets that Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) has revealed on his talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (my) deletion. I can't judge anyone's intents, but there was not a non-promotional version of this article to revert to. In this particular case, that may have been from overreliance on primary reference material rather than any active intent to promote, but often that will have the same effect. An organization will, of course, toot its own horn in materials it publishes, so we rely primarily on material from disinterested third parties. While notability was not at issue here, I'd also note that the list of references provided is often a mention or name drop rather than coverage, which would make it very difficult to solve that problem. G11 only looks, however, if the article is promotional, not if the subject might pass notability with a later appropriate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly dispute about the matter from those uninvolved. Given that, I'd withdraw objections to restoration. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Temp restored for discussion. For my part, this version from 2012 at least looks reasonably neutral, much more so than the most recent. (I don't think the 2008 afd is relevant, either; this is the version deleted then.) —Cryptic 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a lot of promotional junk got added after I left the article. Version 481612460 is the one I would propose to restore - the way it was when I moved on to other topics. It could use improvement, obviously. Nowadays I would rely more on books as sources. Assuming it gets restored, along with the redirects, perhaps submitted for validation at AfD, I may tweak it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version Cryptic links is not "unambiguously promotional" within the meaning of G11. That version should have been restored on request, and indeed I observe that Seraphimblade did offer to restore it. The offer was to restore to userspace rather than to mainspace. DRV is not being asked to rule about whether or not to restore the article because that's already been decided before we got here. We're being asked to decide whether it should be restored to userspace or mainspace. I think it's surprising that DRV should have to make a decision at that level of detail, and surprising that grown ups couldn't work that out on their talk pages, but okay, let's decide.
Policies or guidelines don't help us with this decision. It's a simple matter of whether the text is promotional but fixable or irretrievably promotional, and since it's a matter of opinion, reasonable people might disagree.
Personally I think it's no worse than many other things in mainspace, so I'd go with "restore to mainspace". If Seraphimblade thinks it's too promotional then Seraphimblade is welcome to fix it! We can't let administrators start to say "you have to go away and make it better before you can put it in mainspace". They're janitors, not managers.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, quite reluctantly, to be honest. The 2012 version doesn't pass the G11 bar. That much is clear and means that the deletion should be overturned. But, and sorry to be blunt, the 2012 version of the article needs work. It relies heavily on self-published sources, and that, while not done in a deliberately promotional way, still presents the subject of the article in the manner that the subject would want the article to be presented. That's problematic in and of itself. And it's why I can fully understand Seraphimblade's general view even if I disagree that the G11 bar was crossed (for the 2012 version). I'm ok with restoring it to the mainspace given that Aymatth2 has undertaken to have a crack at the article. If he doesn't, I will. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace only, or List at AfD. The article is promotional, without obvious independent secondary source coverage. It has a history of promotion on Wikipedia, and needs to be held to pass WP:ORG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Mercury International was a while ago, late 2008, so it should be re-tested at AfD before CSD#G4 is used again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter where it is restored. I plan to improve it, and will do that in mainspace because I find "what links here" is useful. (When it is restored, the #redirect pages that were also deleted should also be restored, for that reason.) I am considering renaming the article to focus on the awards. The list of recipients is quite bizarre. Anyone can propose the article for AfD any time, but should do only if they are convinced that the subject is not notable. Best to wait a few days after the restore to first see the result of the expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the version referred to as "reasonable" looks dubious as to meeting WP:ORG. In these situations, I believe a contested speedy should go straight to AfD. However, given that it was speedied largely due to recent uncontrolled versions, and you are intended to work on it, and you are a very experienced editor, OK. I support restoration to mainspace. Give it a little time before allowing anyone to test it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to last version by Aymatth2. This is the last version before it got promotional. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Bgwhite. Unfortunately clumsy COI editing can often make something seem not worthy of an article but this clearly meets GNG. Restore and protect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aymatth2's 2012 version was a reasonable article. I think it an excellent idea to let him update it. In general, I would normally take any rationally challenged G11 or A7 to AfD: it's better to let the group decide than to argue with the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close The community wants the article restored without prejudice to a new AfD, and Seraphimblade has agreed. If either prefer that it first be userfied, then fine, but otherwise, the article is already in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold nobody is contesting the subject's notability, I object to the heavily promotional version that was eventually deleted, and it's almost always better to start from scratch when it's a hopeless promotion piece. I have no problems with the 2012 version. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.