Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1

Terracon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There seems to be no consensus to delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not related to the video game article moved to this title after the afd. —Cryptic 22:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This review is about the engineering company in Kansas. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - - 4 votes to Delete including the nominator and 2 votes to Keep seems a rough consensus to delete, and so a valid close. The closer did comment that a source analysis would have been useful, so if the deleted article can be temporarily restored, a source analysis can be done. But the close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can't be restored without disrupting the video game article that was happily living at this title for years before and days after the company article existed. The sources in its last revision were Bizjournals 1, Prnewswire 1 cited 3 times, reprinted press release 1, proseless mention in a table, Forbes.com Contributor, CEO's alumnus profile, passing mention in local news, routine announcement of anniversary, reprinted press release 2, Prnewswire 2 cited 3 times, routine announcement of leadership change, Bizjournals 2, Bizjournals 3, Bizjournals 4, Prweb, another anniversary announcement (this time with some usable information, though it was only used as a redundant fourth citation for an item in a list of acquisitions), routine announcement of name change, Bizjournals 5, Bizjournals 6, announcement of donation by donatee, Bizjournals 7. The content was about what you'd expect from those sources. If it had been a G11 speedy instead of a deletion at afd, I'd probably still be endorsing. —Cryptic 03:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You can disambiguate the title of the deleted page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Numerically the vote is 4-2, which leans closer to delete compared to a no consensus closure and would be a reasonable if the strength of both sides are similar. However, AfD is also not a vote and the delete side is also stronger than the keep side. One of the keep vote is the article creator (who is the DRV nom), who gave vague, unconvincing rationales of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSPOPULAR. While User:Endercase was a a primary contributor to this article, their rationale is IMO decent if weaker than the delete votes and occasionally citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In contrast, the delete side directly rebutted the sources as press releases and routine coverage, therefore I believe the close was an accurate reflection of consensus. VickKiang (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable interpretation of the debate; DRV is not round 2 for when you didn't get your way at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Proper use of admin discretion, per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, whereby the admin calls the discussion per rough consensus, as opposed to waiting indefinitely for increasingly disinterested participants to confirm a true consensus. It was headed to “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request temp undeletion of the deleted article, to be sure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't want to restore it completely as it would need a history split, so I've restored the last version only at User:Black Kite/Terracon with attribution. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. It could be notable, but this version needed deletion. It was WP:Reference bombed with poor quality sources. Any attempt to recreate should wait six months and follow advice at WP:THREE. A G11 deletion would not have been ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer gave a reasonable rationale and interpretation of the discussion. Standard note that DRV is not AFD Part 2... --Jayron32 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while a 4–2 vote on its own does not imply consensus to delete, the two "keep" votes had little to back them up and the "delete" votes were more based in policy. The sources in the "restored" version are generally primary sources and /or passing mentions. No objection to moving to draft/userspace and recreating a better sourced version down the road. Frank Anchor 14:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Completely reasonable interpretation of consensus that gave greater weight to the policy-based !votes. Also per Stifle.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - neither of the two keep !votes linked or cited any sources meeting NCORP/GNG. Merely saying "well sourced" doesn't make it so, and doesn't make for a persuasive argument; it's exactly the kind of evidence-free !vote that should be discounted by a closer. Levivich (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Funny, I was the AfD nominator but only stumbled across the DRV by chance. I stand by the nomination and believe the close was good. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]