- Milt's Stop & Eat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closer incorrectly closed as Keep with a minimal number of participants evaluating sources using the "wrong" guideline when a "relist" was more appropriate. Closer also claims to have followed correct procedure but explanation at Talk page is flawed and contradictory but claims they're now being badgered (and oddly, claims they knew all along their close would be challenged??) HighKing++ 10:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, HighKing, but I'm afraid that Bilorv's close of that discussion was exactly what we would expect. The fact is that that was a well-attended discussion by today's standards, and nobody at all agreed with you, so the article won't be deleted on this occasion. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comment by the closer.) I've been here long enough to recognise the signs in an AFD that the nominator is going to go looking for trouble with the person who implements consensus that they are angry at. You've been here long enough to know better. — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response to the closer) That's three times (at least) you've tried to make it personal. I'm not angry and I'm around long enough to know that almost no DRV's are overturned (don't think I've persuaded anyone to overturn) but I like to think its important to try and its important that we identify if our processes and guidelines stop being fit for purpose. This isn't personal and I'm sorry if something I said has made you appear to be taking it so. HighKing++ 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – per the DGFA, !votes should be discounted in cases where they "were not made in good faith", "contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious". Workaday disagreements about the quality of sources don't meet any of those standards, and indeed choosing a minority view in this case would be an undeniable supervote. More broadly, the notability guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not etched in stone, "occasional exceptions may apply" to them, and they are descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not a closer's job to disqualify one interpretation of them as "wrong". This closure accurately reflected the consensus; if you disagree with that consensus, feel free to renominate once an appropriate period has elapsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the right closure, with a trout to the nominator for bludgeoning the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious Question Many editors attending NCORP-related AfD's don't know that NCORP has a stricter interpretation on references which may be used to establish notability than GNG and often quote from GNG instead. A serious question - why bother having separate guidelines for organizations (e.g. NCORP) at all if !voters can ignore it, safe in the knowledge that the closer isn't supposed to (or won't) take that argument into consideration because that'd be a "supervote" (or because "guidelines aren't etched in stone" or "IAR" or whatever) Isn't it just as much a "supervote" to decide which guidelines/policies to ignore (or allow to be ignored) as to implement? HighKing++ 21:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right to say that closers are clearly and specifically disbarred from deciding which policies or guidelines to prefer. This is set out at WP:NHC:
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy . The closer's role is to evaluate which policy or guideline is preferred by the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians participating in the debate.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RENOM
- At AfD, like elsewhere, decisions are made by those who turn up.
- In some ways, AfD can be considered like a court, with rules and a decision by jury.
- In another, it is a group learning exercise, where participants learn largely through the discussion. In this view, it is the role of participants to explain things to other participants.
- Was a participation poor? Consider Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Look, just because NCORP has 1) an expansive definition, and 2) is stricter than the GNG, doesn't mean it's the Rosetta Stone for deletionism's resurgence. The subject article is about a restaurant, not a nonprofit or a think tank, and as such it's got a building, a menu, a reputation... not just a boardroom and balance sheet. GNG applied, GNG was correctly evaluated, if I could move that this be dismissed with prejudice I would. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deciding whether a source is "independent" and "significant" is inherently subjective, and as long as the arguments are not clearly contrary to policy, it is going to come down to a vote in the end per WP:NHC, as S Marshall puts it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Guidelines such as WP:CORP are not absolute, and the unanimous (apart from the nominator) consensus was that the GNG was relevant and applied in this case. Relisting is supposed to be for unclear cases, or where there is almost no activity. In this discussion, the consensus was clear, the arguments well presented, and the turnout was moderately good so relisting would have been inappropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - not the wrong guideline, it's just a guideline anyway, not the wrong interpretation of consensus, and not the wrong close. WP:NCORP is the deletionist camp's argument de jour of late and we've seen it trotted out incessantly in the last little while, most commonly as an excuse for completely ignoring WP:BEFORE. St★lwart111 09:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, thanks everyone. I'm more than a bit deflated to be honest. I've probably been one of, it not the, most ardent supporter of NCORP and its strict guidelines on notability and I've participated in hundreds (at least) of NCORP-related AfDs over the past few years. I note there's some long-time editors here, who do great work and who've weighed in, very vocally, to knock a lump out of my position and me personally. I thought I was doing a pretty good job too but clearly based on the feedback here, I haven't a clue. Genuinely, I don't get why we bother with NCORP at all to be honest if all it takes is for enough !voters to turn up an say "Fails/Passes GNG" and the closer counts them up. And what's the point of any argument or debate at all if that's just going to be "bludgeoning" the process? I could make lots more arguments about consensus and guidelines and the role of a closer, etc, but lets be honest, I'm pissing into the wind. No hard feelings, good luck, I'll take my leave. HighKing++ 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking a bit more on my comments, I think NCORP should apply if the defining characteristic of a page topic is a corporation. There are plenty of topics that are organized as corporations, such as the LDS church, but are described in reliable sources substantially as another sort of thing--churches, restaurants, whatever. And I apologize if my comment came across as harsh and personal rather than emphatic--it was not intended to be an ad hominem rebuke, and I am sorry if it was taken that way. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure NCORP should exist in anything like its present form. It was an attempt to instruct people to !vote to delete more articles (or how closers should consider nonconforming !votes) whereas our guidelines are intended to be descriptions about how the community views matters. It purported to take priority over WP:N and it also developed an extended ambit beyond the promotional articles it was intended to target. There should instead be a policy against primarily promotional articles, regardless of notability. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should stick to the strict standards of NCORP for any organization or corporation, but for certain sourcing requirements the burden of proof is not on those wishing to keep the article, so long as the sources have been presented in good faith and do not obviously fail the requirement. For "significant coverage", this is a highly subjective criterion which will be decided primarily by !vote count. For "independent", too often I see "delete" !voters making claims of "churnalism" without proof. If it appears in a reliable source and is not a simple reprint of a press release, then the burden is on the "delete" side to establish that the source is not independent. Likewise, for interview introductions of significant length, the "delete" side needs to establish that they did not exercise editorial judgment and fact-checking when writing that bit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Making non-trivial claims of non-independence the responsibility of those asserting non-independence seems to be a good idea that should probably be captured and kept alive outside this DRV. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially when we have claims that despite being published by career journalists in highly respected newspapers and magazines, some sources are not "independent" because they include significant (or even some) interview-format quotes from company representatives. St★lwart111 12:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. (and delete) There's a reason for NCORP and it has nothing to do with deletionism or inclusionism. In practice, it'sour most effective defense against promotionalism . It doesn't matter as far as notability (or. the actual policy behind it , NOT INDISCRIMINATE) whether we include on more small restaurant chain or not; It does matter to our fundamental policy NOT ADVERTISiNG, that we are very careful about adding articles in field where so much of the writing is promotional: ifw e make it easy to add promotionalism , we are no better than google. . This article is not intended as promotionalism , but it is indistinguishable from it: most of the article is about the menu and links to local reviews. Add the hours and locations, and it would do for the chain's web page. Anything that would do as a firm's web page is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article . DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a reasonable article and I'd be thrilled if we had similar articles on equally notable restaurants. I understand the concern about promotionalism and the slippery-slope argument. But I'd hate to see such arguments prevent us from covering topics like this. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I think this is what happens when good editors and admins have been fighting promotion so long they adopt a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that says it's OK to delete companies that pass the GNG just because they're entities who might benefit financially from Wikipedia's coverage. By all means let's stomp undeclared paid
advertising editing and promotional writing, but how about let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
