Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 December 1
2013 December 3 >

2 December 2013

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vedontakal Vrop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as no consensus, but none of the arguments in favour of keeping the article provided any reliable sources to support such a position. Whpq (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • But that doesn't make the "no consensus" close wrong, does it? Non-deleting outcomes discussed at the AfD, such as "merge" or "redirect", do not require any reliable sources. Those outcomes were backed up with intelligent reasoning from established editors and JulianColton could not rightly have disregarded them. If JulianColton had closed as "keep" without any reliable sources, then I would say you were right to bring the close here, but that's not what happened.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was only one user in the AfD who suggested a merge, all the other Keep votes were for Keep not merge. When the merge compromise was suggested 3/4's of the way through the AfD, the new created target article Slaka (fiction) was as non-notable as this one, no reliable sources with significant coverage (still the case IMO). We (deleters) couldn't be be expected to concur with a merge request into a coathook that is (we believed) just as non-notable. There was no suggested compromise to delete-by-redirect it wasn't on the table, the only late-game suggestion by one editor was a merge to another non-notable article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just added a couple of neutral third party sources to the Slaka article yesterday. Just FYI. One of them actually wondered why WP hadn't created an article about Slaka yet! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read that AfD I see the possibility of a merge raised and discussed by several editors. You're right to say that they mostly reject the idea, for various reasons, but how does that invalidate what I said?—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Keep voters brought up merge and rejected it (except for one editor). The Delete voters also brought up merge, and also rejected it. There was only one editor who argued for a merge, which everyone else disagreed with, including fellow Keepers. In terms of merging, I think there was consensus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just threw it out there as an idea without real strong feeling in either direction (I favored - and still favor - keeping the opera article) and the proposal was not so much rejected as ignored by the other "keepers" and dismissed without a lot of discussion by the "deletionists" - but in either case, irrelevant here. Montanabw(talk) 05:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the others ignored the idea of merging.. they ignored your particular suggestion, but they did bring up merging and specifically rejected it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You and Jerry clearly rejected all discussion of any kind of merge or compromise. Everyone else sort of made random comments, but the merge concept (to Slaka or Bradbury) was not specifically voted on or discussed much, so there was no clear consensus. I offered the idea as a compromise, and slapped some merge tags on to see if anyone saluted, though I actually favored just keeping the article. Whoever just said below that merge discussions confuse an AfD is right. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, it was a good close. (1) There was no consensus. (2) Even if an article has no references and fails the notability guidelines, that does not equate to "delete", as S Marshall says. (3) a nomination or !vote for deletion based on lack of notability or sources is a weak argument unless it explains why merge or redirect is inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Having read the discussion, the closer's interpretation that there is no consensus appears to be the appropriate outcome. I also wouldn't go so far as to say there's consensus toward merging the content, but that does appear to be the prevailing opinion among those not !voting to delete. I'd recommend to the nominator that he keep an eye on the page, and if after a few months it hasn't been merged or improved, that a second AfD is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: I created the Slaka article as an attempt to compromise by creating a suitable merge target, a compromise which was summarily rejected, so I tossed the merge tag after the Afd closed, but to avoid problems with that new article, I have since added some third party sources to that article, one, in fact, noting that there really should be a wikipedia article about it... as for the imaginary opera, the discussion had basically degenerated to an "ILIKEIT" versus a "IDONTLIKEIT" discussion which was going nowhere. Time to drop this stick before we have round two of the same. Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Part of closing an AFD is weighing the arguments presented for and against deletion, not just counting votes. Arguments in favor of deletion were based in bedrock Wikipedia principles. Arguments in favor of keeping were desperate "Yes, but..." that in no way refuted the deletion arguments and in large measure supported them. This fictional opera has attracted exactly no critical attention in the thirty years since it was made up; not every trivial fictional concept needs to have a redirect to something. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - while WP:N strongly prefers multiple sources, they're not strictly required - with multiple possible merge targets discussed, it becomes more of a content arrangement issue, in which case the headcount is upweighted. Given that merge outcomes at AfD should be avoided (as the make future development harder, put undo work on the discussion closer, and tend to be supervotes trying to compromise where consensus doesn't really exist), no consensus is a pretty sensible outcome here. Such an outcome doesn't preclude merger to Slaka (fiction) and/or Malcolm Bradbury in the future (nor does it require it). WilyD 08:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've tried to point out above, there was consensus in the AfD to not merge. Merging should not have been taken into consideration in the final no consensus ruling. In terms of sourcing, we have a policy that an article can not be composed of WP:PRIMARY sources. That policy is strict and explicitly says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources." (emphasis not added). Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was "no consensus" on merging and the topic was not really discussed or voted upon. It was tossed into the mix as an idea. You are distorting the record here. The close was appropriate adn the article should stay. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but since the discussion turned up at least one source, the fix for the problem is to add source(s), not delete the article. WilyD 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus" was really the only accurate way to close that, but I do think that unless reliable sources show up reasonably soon its eventual fate will be to be merged or relisted again and deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is what editors said about merging during the AfD:
Editor Vote For merger Sentiment against merger No comment Quote
Montanabw Keep 1 0 0 "We could merge this into that new article."
Green Cardamom Delete 0 1 0 (struck a previous suggestion to merge)
Smerus Keep 0 1 0 "it makes more sense for them to refer to this article rather than merge"
Gerda Arendt Keep 0 1 0 "I would say merge if it was part of one novel, but now it's in two, and it would be undue detail in the author's article"
Clarityfiend Delete 0 0 1 n/a
Whpq Delete 0 0 1 n/a
Peterkingiron Comment 0 1 0 "If we were dealing with something that featured in one novel, I would suggest merging back to that novel. We cannot easily do that with two novels.."
Jerry Pepsi Delete (nom) 0 1 0 Rejected Montanabw's suggestion for merger, saying "What would work for me is editors not creating articles without checking on whether there are independent reliable sources for them."
RexxS Keep 0 0 1 n/a
Out of 9 people, 5 said no to a merger (in varying degrees), 3 had no comment, and only 1 proposed a merger and didn't really want it anyway. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if this comment by Smerus counts as WP:CANVAS but it was obviously designed to instill sympathy for keeping the article amongst the Wikiproject Opera community, it wasn't a "neutrally worded" notification. One can notify, but not try to influence ("canvas") for a particular outcome, this was possibly an influential post. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing in favour of overturning the original decision because of the article's creator's undoubtedly influential remark? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not place this comment on WP Opera, therefore did not notify or canvass the project. I made a comment on the report by Voceditenore, and made it perfectly clear where I was coming from. Frankly I resent the accusation of Green Cardamom that I sought to canvass. But I am of course always open to apologies. I am flattered that MichaelBednarek considers my opinions 'undoubtedly influential' :-}, not that they seem to have brought any landslide of support, so perhaps my evil ability to get people to agree with me has been over-rated.--Smerus (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to flatter; I only quoted Green Cardamom, omitting any smileys or quotes which you, illuminating my intention, now provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone is interested in encyclopedic articles, rather than venting hot air, I have added material and a secondary source to the article.--Smerus (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Holy Knights (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The band now satisfies criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by virtue of releasing a second album via Scarlet Records [1]. Therefore, the articles for the band and their first album, A Gate Through the Past should now be restored. The closing admin has been contacted - to no avail. Óðinn (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm a 6 year old AFD that has, assuming good faith, been superseded by events. I don't think you need to wait for a week for the DRV to close to start work on this. Lets wait a day to see if anyone disagrees, otherwise I'll probably just close this and undelete the material for you to work on. No doubt someone can take it to AFD if they disagree. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but even a six-year old AfD requires a successful effort to address the problems, as here, or we'll be doing everything over again. Most of what we did then was right, and remains right. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question the validity of the original AfD, but the circumstances have obviously changed. Óðinn (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse old AfD closure; endorse creation of new version of article. The second album didn't exist at the time of the AfD, so the deletion was in order. New events have changed the story for the band. Since the lack of the second album was the major complaint in the AfD nomination, a new article can be created now without fear of CSD G4. (If the new article were to get deleted, and if it mentioned the second album and multiple reliable sources, then I'd say to overturn the speedy deletion, but that's way premature.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Mystic Bourbon Liqueur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was neutral and non-promotional and was the subject of an ongoing discussion. The deletion was premature. Blitzlaw (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metropolitan, if you really think this, and if your view is supported, please overturn my deletion and return it to AfD, but think first whether there is any actual chance of there being an acceptable article here. Do you really think any other close than delete is the least likely? A city business journal, after all, is my idea of the most unreliable indiscriminate PR-ridden source imaginable, Relying on it as the best source, is pretty much a proof of promotionalism for what even the article admits is a very locally known product. I suggest instead simply allowing a new article to be written, preferably through AfC. I restored the article here immediately myself for visibility, because I think it shows on its face its nature as a prime example of what G11 is about, better than any argument I could give. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse as well within the acceptable range. We'll not be leaving it up to WP:SPAs to judge 'neutral and non-promotional'. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historically, we used to have a problem because there are several major reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers and advertisers. We dealt with this by implementing G11. The purpose of G11 is to empower our sysops to remove blatant marketing material without wasting the community's time with any bureaucracy. So the proper question for this DRV is: "Was this blatant marketing material?" If it was, then the process has been correctly followed and we should endorse, and if it wasn't, then we should overturn and list at AfD. In my view, it was blatant marketing material and DGG was therefore correct to remove it.

    This doesn't make Metropolitan90 wrong. It is conceivable that the subject article could be toned down. I would encourage Metropolitan90 to restore it to the nominator's userspace so that he can tone it down, add his reliable sources, and bring a non-promotional draft back to DRV for us to consider again.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion Oh yeah, that was marketing material. The topic may or may not be notable, but that was spam. If a non-spamy version were created based on those sources, I'd strongly support it getting a chance at AfD (where it would almost certainly be deleted). But this version clearly meets the speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neutral and non-promotional" is a pretty hard sell when the article contains word-for-word copies of the company's own marketing material. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that there's a very active discussion going here. First of all, there's no hard sell in the article Hobit. 95% of the entry was the history of the company, and the story of how it came to be. These are answers to questions we get constantly - people want to know why we created something they're interested in and enjoy, and learn from our experiences in the highly regulated and complex spirits business. The fact that I used the tasting notes to describe a sensory experience is not in and of itself marketing. I'm actually really disturbed by the fact that many old and new liqueurs from corporate behemoths like Diageo and Brown Forman have entries, while new brands that are much more interesting from a social, cultural and business standpoint get deleted immediately. Why is this when it is low-overhead for Wikipedia to have pages corresponding to list entries in other articles. If Wikipedia is going to list Mystic or Hideous in a list of liqueurs, why are you going to punish people for trying to provide more information? For example, when I mentioned two brands with less informative entries than I built, Stuartyeates went and flagged the other brands' entries with deletion to do what exactly? Justify deleting Mystic? So Wikipedia becomes less relevant, less interesting, and less helpful. No one had an issue with the other postings until I brought them up. That's pretty telling.

    I mean this with respect as someone who has been a daily Wikipedia user for many years before trying to contribute (and you should also know that I refused to add several previous businesses to Wikipedia in the past despite pressure to do so from marketing teams): The real issue that many of you seem to have lost sight of is that interesting and culturally relevant topics that people want to read about are often done in the context of a business. The first reporting on these businesses are usually local business journals and papers.

    The fact that one 5 year old liqueur from a multinational gets an entry while others that are younger or older don't makes no logical sense. Deleting all of them in the name of some abstract notion of sourcing doesn't help the reader looking for encyclopedic information on the field of liqueurs, instead it creates a random patchwork of information that looks more confusing than helpful. Finally, the points made above are conclusory insofar as no one has identified what in the edited and properly categorized post is actually problematic - for example, Hobit complains of what content? the tasting notes I guess? Well, would it be better to cite a food blogger's description of the taste of the product? An industry newsletter that discusses it but is not publicly available because it's behind a subscription wall? Cut out the tasting notes altogether?

    Others suggested that it be "toned down". That would be constructive. What's actually in the content that you don't feel is appropriate? Let's have a discussion and make the entry better. Your suggested action S Marshall T/C - sending it back to me with no direction with the admonition to please you more next time is singularly unhelpful. Why not instead put some time into working with me on it so that we can bring up to the standard?
    I'll close by simply saying that this process has put a lot of the bigger issues Wikipedia is facing into sharp focus for me. As editors, moderators, whatever your titles are in this world, you have a a duty to contribute to improve the content, not just delete because you don't want to put in the time and effort. I can't really see how, on balance, Wikipedia is improved by deleting my entry and many others that have been or could be deleted for similar reasons, thus leaving many categories that list spirits (or whatever else) lacking entries and thus depth when users want to drill down into a topic.
    I'm happy to continue working constructively on the entry. There are sources that came out this week, some older ones I didn't cite are paper or subscription only and I'll add those in. If you have specific issues with the content, let's engage. Forcing the rules by deleting less than one day into the process erodes confidence and interest.Blitzlaw (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to start improving the article, but that would need to start with independent sources with in depth coverage of the product, as per the WP:GNG. Until they're found it's just a question of which procedure we use to delete the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that offer, Blitzlaw, but I'm afraid that I don't see an article on this obscure American alcoholic beverage as the highest-priority thing to spend my volunteering time on. Good luck with it though.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was a pretty borderline case between "needs a fundamental rewrite" and "needs editing with a giant, atomic powered chainsaw". I don't know that I would've deleted it, but if not I would've cut it down with the ferocity of a wolverine that's been forced into a christmas sweater. The best action here is probably to start over. WilyD 08:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for advice about content (and I always like to give give advice): the long section about how the two founders decided to produce this particular product, --material which can be based on on their personal knowledge of what went through their heads at the time--is usually considered as inappropriate for an encyclopedia--it belongs on their website. The discussion between the two of them over the label, likewise. The detailed history of their negotiations with government approval, likewise. "Tasting notes" from a reliable source is relevant, if the product is notable, because what it tastes like is basic information when there's a good source for it, but this can't be taken from a blog on facebook. But , as mentioned above, even if it were rewritten it doesn't seem to have sources for notability. that's not a speedy deletion criterion, but it is a criterion at AfD . Local newspapers about local products are usually considered indiscriminate sources. If you get true editorial reviews in several reliable national sources, there could be a sustainable article. You are, however, correct that it is usually products from major companies that get such attention. However unfortunate that may be for new enterprises getting started, helping them is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It needs a PR campaign, and this is not the place to conduct it. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly commercial promotion, for which we properly have low tolerance. Allow userfication for Blitzlaw (talk · contribs), for him to attempt coverage based in independent secondary sources, although I think it unlikely that he will success, not seeing any independent coverage, and as the editor has no other editing experience. If userfied, the page should be kept blank during periods of inactivity. Advise Blitzlaw to review Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - since the article as written met G11 criteria. There is one independent source (Triangle Business Journal) and there's no reason to prevent editors from posting an article that does not fall under G11. The Mystic Bourbon Liqueur company just began on November 14, 2013. I don't see it surviving AfD if left to run the course of AfD. To get the information into Wikipedia, you would need to include the relevant portions in an older topic, such as Brothers Vilgalys Spirits or Rim Vigalys/Rimas Vilgalys. Rimas probably does not meet WP:N. Instead of trying to get an independent article on Mystic Bourbon Liqueur, I suggest working on Brothers Vilgalys Spirits where you may be able to mention Mystic Bourbon Liqueur as well as create a redirect from Mystic Bourbon Liqueur to Brothers Vilgalys Spirits. That may not work, but I think it is your strongest option (other than waiting two years for information to be independently written about Mystic Bourbon Liqueur. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_2&oldid=1083677305"