Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2

< 2021 June 1

Deletion review archives: 2021 June

2021 June 3 >

2 June 2021[edit]

Sacred Microdistillery – No consensus to take any action. Sandstein 06:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am also requesting restoration of these three talk pages and history merging with Talk:Sacred Gin if any of them contain substantive discussion:

The related discussion is at User talk:Deb and User talk:Cunard.

Deb speedy deleted Sacred Microdistillery as "Unambiguous advertising". I wrote, "Based on the references' access dates from the Google cache of the article, I did work in the article around 2010. I think there is a non-promotional version in the article's history that can be reverted to, so {{db-spam}} does not apply. Would you restore the article?" Deb restored the single revision I worked on.

I added four book sources to the draft, which addressed the A7 part of Deb's statement when Deb restored the 2010 version: "restored version, not G11 but possibly A7 - for Cunard". I moved the draft back to mainspace at Sacred Microdistillery since there is no speedy deletion reason to keep this version of the article from mainspace since A7 now clearly does not apply. I moved the article from Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits because the company changed its name.

I asked Deb to restore all revisions of Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits. The earlier versions are needed to comply with Wikipedia:Copyright policy and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia since I did not write all of the content in the single restored revision of the article. The later versions are needed because I oppose deleting 11 years of an article's history when the only concern is that some editors introduced promotionalism. I would prefer to be working on the latest version of the article (which has no reference errors, additional content, categories, and a photo) as opposed to a 11-year-old version of the article where the references have errors. I said that I expected Wikipedia:Deletion review would support restoration since the deleted revisions did not have copyright violations or BLP violations. I also requested that Talk:Sacred Microdistillery is restored and moved to Talk:Sacred Spirits.

In response, Deb wrote, "Okay, do that. There are other admins who are willing to restore promotional content." I am therefore posting a deletion review to request restoration of the deleted revisions.

Deb also wrote:

The history is a bit mysterious because the article was created by User:Accounting4Taste, who is no longer with us, in January 2021, with the summary "creating a sandbox page with deleted material", and it took me a while to figure out that it was created as "Sacred microdistillery" and before that as "Sacred Gin". There were two deletion discussions: here and here and then it was redirected. Do you feel that these old versions are of any value?

To comply with the copyright policy, the content from Sacred microdistillery and Sacred Gin may also need to be restored. I am therefore requesting restoration of those revisions too. I am also requesting restoration of the associated talk pages if any of them contain substantive discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing looks like a complete mess. From what I can tell, this article was deleted twice twelve years ago, someone sandboxed the deleted material, restored it, which that was the basis for a G11 deletion? And now you want to restore the history of the deleted versions because you've incorporated some deleted content into the latest version? Is this correct? Is there any reason why a dummy edit wouldn't suffice here? (Also, I'm not convinced the article as written passes WP:NORG, but that's a different, albeit not irrelevant, tangent.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressing your notability concern here and am addressing the other points you raise below. The subject was substantially discussed in these three books:
1. Grossman, Eric (2016). Craft Spirits: Know the Makers, Infuse Your Own, Create New Cocktails. New York: Penguin Random House. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-1-4654-4384-7. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
  The book provides two pages of coverage (including some photos) of Sacred Microdistillery.
2. Brown, Tina (2018). Gin: An Illustrated History. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-8006-4. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
  The book provides 2.5 pages of text and four pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
3. Stephenson, Tristan (2016). The Curious Bartender's Gin Palace. London: Ryland Peters & Small. ISBN 978-1-84975-701-0. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
  The book proves two pages of text and several pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sacred Gin to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be OK use G11 on an article where there was a non-promotional version in the history? Why not just revert to the non-promotional version? That decision to G11 seems wrong to me, in which case DRV would surely remedy that by restoring the other revisions. To perform a complex history merge involving several pages may be disproportionate, in which case we might want to consider the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - I wouldn't necessarily agree that the version I restored was entirely non-promotional, just that it wasn't unsalvageable. But you can see it in the history; judge for yourself. Deb (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there was a version that in your judgment was ok to restore, why not just revert to that? I'm really struggling to make sense of the G11 here.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I've given the idea that I was happy about restoring it, I wasn't. I agreed to restore it to draft primarily so that Cunard could see what his version looked like. I hoped that he would use it to create a fresh article without any promotional content. In retrospect, I don't think I should have restored it at all. Deb (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be okay to G11 an entire article, in fact I think G11 itself requires restoration: If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. However, there's a couple ways this could go depending on what the history looks like given the two AfDs, and an admin's going to have to dig into the history to figure out exactly what's going on here. I still have concerns about the article as it's currently written too - it looks like it has been discussed in some books so I may be wrong about the NORG, but it doesn't feel like an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about incorrect speedy deletion and the copyright policy: In 2010, Sacred Microdistillery was restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery. Since deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, Deb's 2021 speedy deletion under WP:G11 was incorrect. The history of Sacred Spirits makes it look like I wrote the entire article, which is incorrect. This is because Deb restored to draft my single edit to the article. Other editors started and contributed to the article before I made my edit, so why not restore their edits too? This violates Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I am requesting that all revisions of Sacred Microdistillery be restored and history merged with Sacred Spirits.
Based on Deb's comment here that a previous deleting admin restored content with the edit summary "creating a sandbox page with deleted material", there could be other violations of the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy if previously deleted content from Sacred microdistillery and Sacred Gin were used in the article. I do not have access to the history so I don't know. I am requesting restoration of those pages' history to comply with the copyright policy if any of those pages' content was used. If those pages' content was not used, then I am fine with those pages remaining deleted.
S Marshall makes a good point about a history merge possibly being too complex. If a history merge would be too complex because of Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions, the history should still be restored but the {{Copied}} template should be used as recommended in the guide.
Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging C.Fred (talk · contribs), who commented in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery that "I've been coaching Beefeaterdrinker on what the article needs to make it notable—and to get it improved enough that it's no longer a substantial copy of the article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination)."
The uninvolved participants in this discussion are not admins. As an admin, would you (or any other admin) review the deletion revisions of Sacred Microdistillery, Sacred microdistillery, and Sacred Gin and confirm for each article whether or not any of the content was used in Sacred Gin so would require attribution? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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