Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2022 October 30
2022 November 1 >

31 October 2022

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

The article had made some significant improvements towards the end of this process (most of which was accomplished after the "delete" votes - pointed out by the last "Keep" comment). In the interest of WP:HEY and close to fulfilling general notability its the hope it can be moved to draft - improved some more and submitted via AfC. EricFishers11 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EricFisher, as the deletion review author, you do not get to post a second vote in favor of your proposal. This is considered double voting, which is not permitted.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. EricFisher has a disclosed WP:COI as a paid editor on this topic, and I still have not seen any evidence that significant independent coverage of Early Warning Labs as a company exists anywhere (including the WP:REFBOMB addition of many sources during the AFD). The source analysis from the AFD demonstrated that no sources have been found that pass WP:ORGCRIT; even the ones introduced during the discussion. The final keep commenter did not produce any evidence that the sources pass WP:ORGCRIT, and vaguely asserted that it passes SIGCOV without actually interacting with the sources with any form of analysis, or engaging with our policies in regards to organizations. The detailed source analysis is the only assessment of the sources which actually engaged with them in any meaningful way. As such, WP:HEY does not apply, nor is there any policy based reason to overturn this close as there was a strong policy based argument for deletion backed by majority consensus.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am usually willing to give an editor acting in good faith a userspace copy of a deleted article, but I am not willing to do so here. EricFisher not only has a declared COI, he has become too invested here, posting more than 30 times to the AfD. I am therefore not convinced that allowing draftification will be a net benefit to the community, and I would suggest that EricFisher spend their time elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest partial block of EricFishers11 from this page to avoid the bludgeoning present at the AfD. Star Mississippi 00:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, and partial block if necessary. Despite the bludgeoning and refbombing, no actual evidence of passing GNG has been produced. I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a combative COI editor who evaded AFC after the initial rejection of the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be appropriate to make DRV off-limits to COI editors? That is, if an editor has a COI on a deleted article, they would not be able to object themselves, but would have to convince a non-COI editor to open the process, in which they themselves would be unable to contribute. I'm thinking this doesn't happen often enough to prompt such a rule, but maybe we should consider proactively enacting it to minimize wastes of time. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer to handle it case-by-case - it's just one more (albeit very minor) incentive for such users not to disclose a COI, as EricFishers11 has done, and as we want them to do. We shouldn't make a pre-emptive rule banning all such users from DRV any more than we should be pre-emptively blocking EricFishers11 on the theory that they might, in the future, become disruptive. —Cryptic 03:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      just to be clear, I support COI editors being able to weigh in, but anyone would be on the precipice of a bludgeon block for that conduct. Star Mississippi 13:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an obviously accurate reading of the consensus. Numerically, there are three keep votes, out of which one is from the article creator who has a COI and another is from a single-purpose IP. Discounting these votes would give just one keep vote and all other eight votes being delete. Further, the delete side is obviously stronger, pointing out that the sources are a collection of interviews, routine coverage, and reviews of its products which fail WP:CORPDEPTH in detailed source assessments. In contrast, the keep votes rely on weak assertions of WP:POPULARITY, and WP:ATD along with a vague WP:BITE accusation, with the creator WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion 19 times. Given that the topic is non-notable and no additional refs meeting WP:NCOMPANY has been provided, I disagree with allowing a recreation via AfC, and it is clear that the closing is accurate and the DRV is unnecessary. VickKiang (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the "delete" votes had both the quantity (8-2 excluding a "keep" vote posted by a single-purpose IP) and substance, particularly the source analysis table (though I do believe the CBS source was incorrectly dismissed, one RS is generally not enough to satisfy GNG). I oppose a partial block of EricFishers11. Frank Anchor 12:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concede on this EricFishers11 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @EricFishers11 your comment is unclear - are you wanting to withdraw the review or just agreeing with the points made directly above? Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdraw will be fine - I dont want to waste anymore of anyone else's time EricFishers11 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A paid editor who is attempting to slam an article down the throats of volunteer editors. Wasting time despite plenty of experienced editors advising them on what they need to do to improve the original draft. The close was fine and I would also recommend salting in mainspace as history shows this type of behavior will likely result in future attempts at the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reading of the consensus by the closer. The analysis of references by User:4meter4 is conclusive; thank you, User:4meter4. The appellant is wasting the community's time, as they did by arguing at the AFD, but that is a conduct issue, and DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original AfD. However, I don't think that Eric is wasting my time, or that they should be blocked. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2022 (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.
Bobby Witt (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Some time ago, I made a successful AfC/R request for Bobby Witt (disambiguation) to be created as a redirect to Robert Witt, before I decided to turn it into a dab page featuring the baseball players Bobby Witt Sr. and Bobby Witt Jr. However, Buidhe contended that the dabification was inconsistent with our policies in a PROD. The rationale was:

Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry (see also's don't count). This situation should be handled with hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER

Buidhe soon sent the page to AfD (partially at my request), where I !voted a "BLAR [...] to Robert Witt" to restore the status quo. Meanwhile, Devonian Wombat argued to keep the dab page due to the two Witts being "close enough in important" to warrant a dab page. After the AfD ran with (edited 05:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)) two relists and nearly three weeks, Star Mississippi closed the AfD as "no consensus" on September 2. Soon after, Buidhe BLARed the dab page to Robert Witt "per suggestion at the AfD".

I have recently brought the issue back up at Talk:Bobby Witt (disambiguation), where I proposed a DRV to solidify consensus for Buidhe's BLARing. Buidhe contended that the dabification was inconsistent with our policies, while Star Mississippi noted that they were "happy for a DRV" with more detail.

I actually lean towards dabification, but since the point of DRV is to debate the AfD itself, I wouldn't !vote (yet) here. Thank you for your time. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Disambiguation, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed". The closer should have ignored the suggestion to keep a dab page at the current location, as it's not compliant with policies and guidelines. If this is to be a dab page it would have to be at a different location. I can't really endorse the close as it does not make this clear. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should the BLARing be reversed? I personally say yes (as with the existence of both George Brett and George Brett (disambiguation)), but I hope that the closer can also address the discussion, as a whole, as it relates to the BLARing. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2022 (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/2022_October_31&oldid=1126090431"