Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigface

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. As with the previous administrator who closed this, I'm just not seeing a consensus. There are some weak keep arguments; it is policy that this topic is required to meet NCORP, and not the somewhat lower bar of GNG: as such there are a couple of "keeps" that receive lower weight. However, when sources have been provided that ostensibly meet NCORP, there is the expectation that those arguing to delete rebut those sources. The OP has provided reasoned arguments against the provided sources, but multiple other "delete" arguments have not done so; and many predate some detailed source analysis. As such I cannot give those !votes full weight either. The remainder are evenly divided, and have a basis in policy. With NCORP, just as any other notability criterion, reasonable editors may disagree about borderline topics; specifically, how a source needs to show itself independent, and what volume of coverage is necessary to be significant. This topic clearly falls into that gray area, and I see no basis for further weighting that would tilt this toward consensus one way or the other. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bigface[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bigface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. There's a discussion on the Article Talk page explaining why certain references fail the criteria. HighKing++ 14:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oaktree b, do you not think that the Bleacherreport fails ORGIND seeing as how it relies entirely on information provided by its founder and his twitter post? And the same with the UPI report - based entirely on the announcment and quotes from Butler? What am I missing here? Why do you think these meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing++ 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    UPI is a press agency and is generally considered RS. There's this from a Canadian sports network [3], this from CNBC [4], we have at least five RS discussing the event. That's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wall Street Journal in the article, we have more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oaktree b, I don't think you've addressed the question. You're simply commenting on the basic requirement that each must be a reliable source. I'm assuming all the sources meet RS. But as you know, this is a company and therefore we look to WP:NCORP to see how to implement GNG. Which includes the requirement for in-depth WP:CORPDEPTH "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND. Are you just deciding to ignore NCORP? If not, can you point to specific paragraphs in any of those sources which meet NCORP WP:SIRS? Thanks. HighKing++ 20:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure it meets NCorp, it's at GNG though, that's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, and as you've been told at another AfD recently, the standard to be met here is WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, the first criteria is ORGCRITE, which we have. AUD is fine, we have coverage from two different countries, all independent of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured in Men's Health magazine [5]. Coverage in the sports press, the business press, the health press, the general entertainment press, in the USA and Canada. We're well past notability. Oaktree b (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, can you point out a specific paragraph in a specific reference which meets WP:SIRS/NCORP? We're agreed that because this topic is about a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies. It says we require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company or their execs - for example, articles that rely entirely on interviews, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even if slightly modified - if it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
  • So looking at the Men's Health article, which paragraph meets NCORP? I mean the entire thing is recounting an "exclusive interview" with the founder and we need to see *in-depth* information about the company which *clearly* does not originate from Butler. All of the "detail" comes from Butler. For example, paragraph 4 starts with "BIgface has come a long was in a seemingly short amount of time" which is clearly an opinion of the author but might get your hopes up for the remainder of the paragraph. Next sentence talks about Butler. Next is about one of the company's first coffee releases winning a prize. But then the last sentence makes it obvious that the preceding sentence was a regurgitation of Butler recounting his version of the beginning of the "journey". So no, not only fails ORGIND but also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I'm not this involved. I've said what i have to say. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you !voted and you participate a lot at AfD so you should realise that a topic can't "pass GNG" and fail NCORP seeing as how NCORP is essentially the guideline on how to apply GNG to companies/organizations. HighKing++ 12:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've !voted. Please stop badgering me Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree b. --evrik (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per general notability and good coverage. However, the company is quite young, and a thorough review of sources may be needed to confirm their relevance. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think this is a strange one - the company was founded by someone who is a 10 out of 10 notable athlete and hasn't really been covered outside of him, but also has been covered a lot. It clearly passes WP:GNG while appearing to fail WP:NCORP, but NCORP is designed to avoid coverage from press release situations and doesn't really cover companies like this. I'm neutral, defaulting to an IAR weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment @SportingFlyer I agree. As you say the purpose of the guideline is to avoid "press release situations" which leverage lazy journalism into newspaper coverage, i.e., where news articles don't show journalistic labours like fact-checking, research, quotes from other sources, etc.
    Articles like this appear to fail WP:NCORP only if one accepts the position advanced by @HighKing above ("we need to see *in-depth* information about the company which *clearly* does not originate from [the article subject]"). That collapses in-depth and independent into a single test, effectively requiring a source that could satisfy WP:SIRS without relying at all on facts provided by the article subject. That's not an obvious, or even fair, gloss on the wording of WP:CORPDEPTH. Even if it was, common sense should consider (as you suggest) if the volume of coverage argues against a finding of no-notability.
Without a deeper dive into the challenged sources myself I don't feel like my vote is meaningful right now. I may have a deeper look later in which case I'll cast a vote. Oblivy (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability has been shown based at least on:
  • the Bleacher Report article[[6]] (investigates the history of the business enterprise and includes content from others on twitter)
  • the Sun Sentinel Article [7] (not very long, but includes information not sourced from Butler), and
  • this Mirror article [8] which I've added to the article (analysis and commentary and relies on external sources to comment on his plans)
Oblivy (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:SIRS which effectively "collapses in-depth and independent into a single test". The "Independent Content" of WP:ORGIND requires in-depth analysis/opinion/etc on the topic company. Content that relies entirely on interviews with the owner/founder are not independent even if a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties. HighKing++ 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's look at the entire text, not just the part you snipped:

    Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

    That's 100% consistent with what I was saying above, echoing @SportingFlyer, that the rule is there to exclude coverage that results from shoveling mere PR content from a company into a news article.
    The last sentence, which you omitted from your comment, says the content must include independent journalistic efforts. Perhaps you would prefer (and feel free to RFC the change, which I'll probably oppose) if WP:SIRS instead said:

    Independent content, in order to count towards notability must include substantial content sourced from unaffiliated sources.

    It doesn't.
    Your gloss on the rule collapses "S" and "I" into a single standard, i.e., that there has to be substantial independent content in each article, counting only facts derived through gumshoe journalism rather than through relying on facts provided by persons with the best knowledge and then checking/investigating/analyzing using other journalistic tools. This reading is not dictated by the words of WP:SIRS or other relevant policy, is insulting to the by-lined journalists and the reputable publications for whom they write, and risks deleting (as has happened in the past) in-depth articles which are well supported by independent, good faith journalism. Oblivy (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess, your point isn't particularly clear to me, apologies. I may be wrong, but what I think you're saying is that you can meet the "I" (Independent Content or ORGIND) requirement if the article contains some content, even trivial content, and that is a separate test from the "S" (significant coverage or CORPDEPTH) requirement whereby content provided by a source connected to the company may be used to meet this requirement. Content (including interviews/quotes/attributed fact/etc) that has been produced/created by a source affiliated with the company is not evaluated for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm saying is, if an article is in-depth then it's S. And if the source is independent of the article subject it's I. Your reading of WP:ORGIND collapses the two creating a needlessly high bar inconsistent with the purpose of the policy which is patently to avoid press releases from transforming into reliable sources just because they got republished by a third party.
    Note that WP:ORGIND refers to "independent source" 15 times, and only says "independent content" once, and it's talking about who "produced" the content (again, supporting the idea of not allowing regurgitated press releases). Oblivy (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification Oblivy, I think my understanding above was in-line with what you're saying above. I disagree with this interpretation for the following reasons.
  • You've quoted ORGIND in full above and then explained that the text is 100% consistent with what I was saying above, echoing @SportingFlyer, that the rule is there to exclude coverage that results from shoveling mere PR content from a company into a news article. The last sentence, which you omitted from your comment, says the content must include independent journalistic efforts. Let's break that down.
  • First, the rule is not solely to exclude mere PR content. Elsewhere you've also said that the purpose of the NCORP guidelines is to avoid press releases transforming into reliable sources. This interpretation is very limiting and incorrect (or only partially correct). The purpose of the NCORP guidelines is to avoid relying on *content* produced by the *company* (or entities associated with the company) from being used for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • Second, it doesn't say that the content must include what you describe as "independent journalistic efforts". It clearly states there is a requirement for the author to provide in-depth content in the form of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to a specific paragraph in any of the sources where you believe this type of content (i.e. "Independent Content") is contained?
  • Finally, from my understanding of the method you are using in applying the tests outlined in WP:SIRS, in essence you are pushing for an interpretation whereby content produced by a Primary source (i.e. an interview with a founder) can fail ORGIND but be used to meet CORPDEPTH, and other content from the author and therefore from a source unaffiliated with the topic company can be used to meet ORGIND (notwithstanding the point above) even though it fails CORPDEPTH. This is an incorrect interpretation, if content fails one of the tests it cannot be used to effectively pass another of the tests. If that were so, one effect of this interpretation is that content from affiliated sources and Primary sources which contains in-depth details could be used to establish notability.
Perhaps if you don't accept what I'm saying above and maybe I'm not very good at explaining it, we could ask a question at the NCORP Talk page? HighKing++ 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your three bullet points in order:
  • certainly we agree a company shouldn't be able to get a press release (or equivalent) published and have it count toward notability. But you use the word "content produced by a primary source" to describe any article that relies mainly on facts provided by the article source, as if there's no role for the journalist or their editors. Look at the bulleted examples under "dependent coverage“ -- they don't describe journalists making use of information obtained from a company while otherwise performing the journalism task in good faith;
  • yes, independent journalistic efforts is an attempt to summarize the last sentence of the quoted language. Those words aren't in the policy but you understood what I was referring to. Your proposed reading would practically excise those words out of the text of SIRS. If you look at the Mirror article it clearly includes efforts to contextualize this business as part of his career (analysis), and the journalist sought information from people other than the article subject to help with that task (investigation, fact checking);
  • I'm not going to engage in any detail with point 3 because it's full of loaded language; this doesn't fail ORGIND (or any test), and I'm not advocating for "content from a primary source".
Not sure "asking a question" at the policy talk page is appropriate. The policy is in force and we should discuss here whether article meets the policy as it is written. Trying to divert this to elite interpretation risks reinforcing the divide between the language as written and how it is proposed to be applied by editors such as yourself. Paraphrasing a comment made elsewhere, the discussion is happening here, and let's keep it here.
But I would like to see an end to the kinds of comments above like "as you've been told in the past" and "you should realize". While you may be frustrated your reading of the policy is being put to question, I'd ask you to hesitate before suggesting other editors are acting improperly if they don't yield to your view. I certainly regret not pushing back more against such pressure in the past. By all appearances @Oaktree b had a similar view to mine but gave up. If you disagree with an argument, fine, but scolding people like that doesn't seem very AGF-y. Oblivy (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start at the last point. When I was referring Oaktree to previous discussions at AfD, those points weren't being made by me but by other editors. I cannot recall having a similar discussion with Oaktree b on this topic in the past. I recognise Oaktree b from their participation at NCORP-related AfDs and consensus is that NCORP describes the application of GNG for certain topics so saying a topic "passes GNG but fails NCORP" makes no sense. I would have expected Oaktree b to be aware and to know that and in that context, their response knowingly ignores consensus.
For the rest, I've read what you're saying several times. There is no equivalency between your substitution of your own words and meanings to the carefully curated words and phrases that are in the guidelines. Your claim that your interpretation is as the guidelines are written does not stand up to scrutiny and this was the purpose of my last post, and you have failed to engage with any of the substantive points. Fine, you will hopefully continue to engage with other editors also at AfD and perhaps some of the things I've said above make might make more sense to you in the future and with more experience at NCORP-related AfDs. I've posted a question at the NCORP Talk page here. Apologies if my writing style can appear abrupt or "scolding", it is not my mindset nor my intention to come across like that (it is a difficult thing to change and I'm working on it). Although we have disagreed and are each holding to our views, thank you for AGF and being nice about it. HighKing++ 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly,
1) Yes, I looked again at the exchange and agree that GNG not NCORP was worth correcting, sorry, although the 2nd one seems a bit more aggressive (we all have our moments, but still...);
2) The carefully curated words don't mean what you say they do, at least not in this situation. I have read them very carefully. But we're not going to agree on that. I'm not trying to change them by using other words, but quoting huge chunks of text doesn't work in this context. Oblivy (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage does not meet NCORP's strict standards for what contributes to GNG. NCORP (and GNG for that matter) is very clear that content must be both independent and SIGCOV to count towards notability. It'd be utterly nonsensical if merely tacking on a trivial sentence of independent commentary magically transformed a non-independent Q&A interview into an ORGCRIT-meeting source. Just as a source with significant independent analysis of the topic doesn't get disqualified just because it also contains a quote--we simply exclude the quote when evaluating ORGCRIT for that source. This proposed system of intra-source unidirectionally-distributive SIRS components is not supported by any PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NCORP not met, as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per the very long discussions above; but most succinctly per JoelleJay. You can't synth your way into good sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and comment; as well as disclaimer as article's creator) I'm saying keep as per the reasons given by previous editors in this discussion. I'm also puzzled by the second relisting. This was 4 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 3 deletes after two weeks of discussion. Both ample amounts of editors discussing as well as lengthy discussions based around policy/guideline were present. Honestly didn't really understand the initial relisting and obviously AfD isn't a vote, but the second relisting really does confuse me as, again, there were already a lot of opinions given and they were well thought out and based on policies or guidelines. I think this should've just been closed as no consensus. Another thing I'd like to address is "synth". I don't really get why that's getting said. I didn't "SYNTH" anything, just took what sourcing on Bigface has said and put it in chronological order in this article to give readers an easy-to-digest company/brand history format to read. I think this discussion got bogged down and ended up becoming an acronym dump and a reminder for me that sometimes discussions are hard to follow when they get put into a really esoteric place. I get that all the policies or guidelines brought up are important or have value or merit to them, but maybe that's maybe been at the detriment of a simple eye test. Obviously that's subjective and hard to put into words, but it's pretty clear that third-party reliable sources have covered Bigface as a company (and/or brand, not sure if there is a distinction that matters or is relevant here on Wikipedia) in a way that helps establish notability. With this being now the third week that this discussion is up (after 3+ weeks of the topic of this article's notability already being put into question, and therefore rattling around in my mind), my feelings on the matter are best said by the guideline page: "while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors." Soulbust (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I've added some information and sourcing to the article. I found these two sources (1, and 2) that I believe fill that criteria of being sources that "contain independent content showing in-depth information on the company." The latter I still need to incorporate into the article. I also found this source [from Sports Illustrated (SI). I think deleting this article would be ridiculous and that redirecting/merging would be more sensible. The obvious target would be to Jimmy Butler, but including this information would cause undue weight as I mentioned on the talk page discussion about this. That SI article I think gives a good in-depth coverage on Butler's passion for coffee, as do a lot of the sources already present in the article. So, my take is definitely still to keep this article, but given the more than ample sourcing present on the topic, I think renaming this article to Jimmy Butler and coffee and restructuring it would be preferable to deleting or merging. There is also precedent for such a topic as one can see with Fidel Castro and dairy. That is just an alternative though, and again, I would still opt to keep this straight up at Bigface. Soulbust (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the delay was partly because some of the interpretation being applied was being discussed at the NCORP Talk page here which may assist a closing admin. Or not. But it isn't uncommon for AfDs to take this long and longer. HighKing++ 17:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Looked at the sources you mentioned/added.
  • This Afrotech reference fails for a couple of reasons. First, Afrotech is a marketing platform owned by Blavity targetting "black and multicultural consumers on a deeper level" and delivering "digital campaigns by strategically distributing content" across multiple platforms. The article itself has no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND, just regurgitating company news and repeating stuff published in Sports Illustrated. Fails RS/GNG/NCORP.
  • Sports Business Journal article is likewise totally void of any Independent Content whatsoever, relying on promotion by Butler's agent, Bernie Lee, who retells the folksy stories of the startup along with more folksy marketing bumpf from Britt Berg, the COO. Fails ORGIND/GNG/NCORP
  • Sports Illustrated article starts off in the first sentence acknowledging that the article is based on interviewing Butler. More folksey marketing without a single sentence of "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND/GNG/NCORP.
Those three sources are prime examples of the types of sources that NCORP was designed to specifically exclude for the purposes of establishing notability. They are thinly disguised marketing (and not even very thinly disguised at that). HighKing++ 15:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I included the SI reference as one that would be good for inclusion if this article were to be retitled/restructured to Jimmy Butler and coffee, but forgot to be clear about that. My bad on that.
I just think once this conversation became ORGIND this and CORPDEPTH that, it began to lose any interest to me in terms of really wanting to participate. If I hadn't created this article, I wouldn't really have any desire to engage in that sort of conversation because to be honest, we're talking about a company/brand founded by an All-NBA player; and one covered by sources like AP News, ESPN, CNBC, Sports Illustrated; and one that's part of the Shopify Creator Program; and one that's collaborated with Van Leeuwen Ice Cream; as well as served as an official sponsor for ATP Tour Masters 1000. So if whatever guideline says this article fails its criteria, and we're talking about that sort of company, then maybe that criteria isn't bulletproof. And not saying that it has to be. But when enough people opine that this does, even if barely (i.e. weak keep) passes GNG, then maybe ignore all rules can be reasonably applied here. Soulbust (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the IAR argument put forward by SportingFlyer and sorry to Soulbust for this dragging on so long, the standard for notablitity, as per our inclusion standards, rise beyond mere coverage. Newsworthiness is well established here, but notability is not that. There is perhaps some encyclopedic content that could be written about the subject, but that content would be much less than the extensive history of everything surrounding the subject, as told to and republished by the news (Wikipedia:Interviews is also somewhat applicable here). Perhaps this could be made clearer in the subject specific guideline but the coverage based criteria do not, and were not intended to, exclude only cases of "self promotion and indiscriminate publicity", or PR material like press releases. But the depth of secondary analysis is unfortunately not sufficent to support a standalone article at this time. I would recommend a redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah except redirecting to Jimmy Butler would again create undue weight since there is a considerable amount of coverage on the issue. What does "our inclusion standards" even mean? Yes, I get that mere coverage isn't enough, but coverage on Bigface isn't at a bare minimum level or anything. Excluding sources that serve to cite background information (basically that first paragraph in the Origins section), there's about ~30 sources that go pretty in-depth into Bigface. Again, this would create undue weight if placed on the Jimmy Butler page. Also, because I think it may have been glossed over, I brought up two sources: (1, and 2) that again, meet the criteria of being significant sources containing independent content showing in-depth information on the company (in this case, as opposed to on Butler). I also agree with Oblivy's previous statements and the sources they listed as ones that also meet this criteria. I think they worded my feelings on the policy and guideline in a better way than I could. And once again, as an alternative to deletion and alternative to a redirect, I think retitling this article to Jimmy Butler and coffee and restructuring this article to be based around that in a way that is similar to Fidel Castro and dairy would be better than redirecting to Jimmy Butler. That redirect would probably result in ~a paragraph getting merged in and gutting a lot of encyclopedic-appropriate information in the process. I think the IAR sentiment brought up by SportingFlyer is somewhat similar to my eye test comment, as this is a case where the NCORP guideline is understandably strict to ensure there is some standard being upheld, but that (perhaps excessive) strictness can run counter to spirit of creating legitimate articles on legitimate topics. Soulbust (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re redirecting to Jimmy Butler would again create undue weight: Spinning off a separate does not automatically alleviate issues with undue weight, as per WP:SPINOFF, with two examples. I do apologise for neglecting to comment on those two sources, but the first fails ORGDEPTH, and the second (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) is questionable re ORGIND. The sources (all of them, taken collectively) do not meet the criteria, whether subject specific (organisations and companies), or generally. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Comes close enough to fulfilling WP:HEY for me. Has some work to do, but notability has been established at the very least. More reputable, secondary and independent sources could solidify my vote into a normal keep over a weak keep. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here, rough or otherwise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hi, this would be the third time this discussion is being relisted. WP:RELIST states "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the [relist] template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient."
You said you don't see a consensus here, which I agree with. I am not against it being relisted per se, but I am confused as to why this would be relisted a further time, as opposed to being closed as "no consensus"? Soulbust (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you summarise the argument for Keep based on the participation to date? As it stands, there are 5 Delete/Redirect !votes plus 4 Keeps that either admit sourcing fails NCORP (or agree with !votes that admit) or that sourcing needs a thorough review - against arguments presented by three editors who either presented novel arguments which were rejected at NCORP Talk or are left invoking IAR. For me, why can't the Keep !votes point to a single source that they can stand over as meeting the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing++ 15:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't summarize the argument. I wouldn't theoretically want that admin responsibility, and also don't enjoy AfDs, especially when they turn into "agree to disagree" takes about policy (which is why I tried to avoid this one as long as I did). This one also had the added aspect of being fairly deep into acronym-dumping (don't intend that to have any sort of harsh connotation, just don't know a better way to phrase it rn). And for some that's not a problem, but I usually check out when the conversation ends up like this, and this one in particular has gone on longer and much more in-depth than any I've been a part of (or at least recall being a part of).
Also, I don't think sourcing fails NCORP, and I'll see if I can do that "thorough review" within the next 2-3 days (I am a little bit busy offline atm — — also, I am assuming based on previous discussion that the "how to apply the criteria" is the relevant checklist for that review).
Having created the article and going through the sourcing in the moment of creating + adding info to the article, I do firmly believe there are at least 2 sources that meet the criteria. And just in case my response a little bit above ("I included the SI reference...") from earlier was missed (I totally understand, this conversation is again very in-depth and branching), I just think the overall criteria isn't bulletproof and applying it to its strict letter can cause the spirit of what it is trying to do to be lost, and therefore cause legitimate articles on legitimate topics such as this to be deleted or redirected as well. And I think other editors who have said to keep this article (either keep or weak keep) would at least somewhat agree with that, given the IAR sentiments, and the sentiments that the sourcing indeed meets GNG. Soulbust (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said above why NCORP/SIRS is met (barely) and don't want to reopen that discussion. But it's fair to say the NCORP talk page discussion did not "reject" the idea that WP:ORGIND doesn't mandate disregarding all information sourced from the organization. Most of the editors voicing that opinion on the talk page also voted here. That discussion IMHO should not be given any weight at this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's laughable. See WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. HighKing++ 08:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my words. Let's keep it classy, please. Oblivy (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soulbust, I did make a short comment saying that I didn't see a consensus yet. But I never relist more than three times. At that point I'll close as "No consensus". I tend to rely more on relisting than closing discussions as No consensus until that seems like the only option because I find that No consensus closures usually are dissatisfying for editors on all sides of a discussion, neither those advocating Keep nor those arguing for Delete are satisfied with No consensus closures. And I will say that I have seen discussions completely change after 3 relistings, sometimes editors suddenly start showing up and making thoughtful arguments that weren't present until then.
But that is just my practice, we have hundreds of admins, probably about a dozen of them help out when they can at AFD and so just because I don't see a consensus doesn't mean that another admin won't and close this one early. I'm just one admin and while I do spend a lot of time assessing AFD discussions lately, my admin opinion isn't the only one here. By the way, we could use a few more admins, with their own approaches, helping out at AFD but it's August and it seems like a lot of editors and admins are spending time doing activities that don't involve being online and editing Wikipedia. I seem to be closing more discussions than usual but I would love more admins and NACs to share the workload, some of whom might agree with you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Okay no problem at all. I was just confused as I don't think or at least don't recall being involved in AfD this in-depth before, as I try my best to avoid the situation. But what you said about "no consensus" closures being dissatisfying is definitely a sensible explanation. Thank you for the response and for all your hard work! It is much appreciated! Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be closed as No Consensus. We have Keep !votes that admit it doesn't meet NCORP. We have two editors who are dragging their heels and trying to find loopholes in our guidelines. HighKing++ 08:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did an assessment of the 36 sources present in this article, as well as 5 additional sources not present. To not make this a huge chunk of text, the wikilink to that is at my user general draft page. The source #s align with the 1-36 present here. For 37-41, I externally linked them on that assessment. There are 6 sources I believe do pass the SIRS criteria (#s 4, 11, 12, 24, 36, and 38). There are 6 more I am unsure about (mainly due to me being unsure if the source itself has been cleared as a reliable source) and 7 more that I would say perhaps. I add notes for these 19 sources that explain why I categorize them as a "yes", "unsure", or "perhaps". Of the remaining 22 sources, I think 18 probably do straight up fail the SIRS criteria. The other 4 are just not applicable as they only source background information that provides the context around the bubble situation. Regardless again, 6 sources that I think do already and 5 more that do if they are considered reliable. Soulbust (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log. Note TK momentarily
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist note while I closed this as N/C, HighKing and I subsequently discussed it, and while I don't see a consensus and they did not ask me to relist, I do think I may have assessed the !votes incorrectly so willing to reopen the conversation and have someone else assess it for closing. Star Mississippi 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pretty odd to me that this got relisted four days after being closed as no consensus, and due to a discussion with an editor already on record pushing for deletion. Additionally, this is now the 4th relisting, which seems like unfair harsh scrutiny to just kick it down a further week; it's particularly unfair (imo) when opinion seems rather evenly divided - logically and literally speaking, no consensus seems to me a fair call. Even disregarding offline commitments, this discussion has made me rather burnt out. Soulbust (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no lack of discussion prior to the close, and aside from a single "delete per args above" there was no change in voting after @Liz said she saw no consensus. Burnt out doesn't even begin to capture this moment for me. Oblivy (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soulbust @Oblivy It may not run a week. Someone else is welcome to re-close at any point. I just relisted it to get it back on the log so it didn't get lost. Star Mississippi 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this has been going on for a month now. This is very atypical for a deletion discussion unless it gets lost during the relisting process. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, while I disagree (fairly strongly) that the keep !votes correctly interpret PAG, specifically NOT and DUE (and of course, N), I feel like we may be better off with this closed, and if necessary, revisting this in two months or so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I think I should have exercised the option of Kicking it over to RSN in or shortly after my initial comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article clears NCORP with flying colours. For WP:THREE, I’d pick Young (CNBC, 01 Oct 21), Fillari (Sprudge, 30 Mar 22) and McCarthy (Good Morning America, 20 Jun 22). Together, they meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The first focuses on origin and backstory; the second on the company’s place in the industry, plans and objectives; and the third concerns continuing notability and wider coverage. None are casual or passing mentions; the subject is the focus of each. All three meet WP:SIRS as reliable, independent, secondary sources. All three are impeccable sources for the subject matter. Like Soulbust (thank you for superb research), I have read the articles repeatedly and all three meet SIRS. This discussion has gone on far too long. The NCORP objection has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted. It’s time to close this as Keep. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNBC source is entirely based on an interview - says it in the 3rd paragraph. Fails ORGIND. Sprudge is entirely based on an interview - says it in the headline. Fails ORGIND. Good Morning America is based on the presenters visiting his pop-up and interviewing Butler. Just watch the video. Fails ORGIND. Fails SIRS. Fails NCORP.
Can any of the Keep !voters who claim that sources meet GNG/NCORP simply point to any particular paragraph in any particular source (e.g. Para 3 starting with "One day..." from XYZ source) so that we can quickly assess both the "Independent Content" (i.e. not relying on company/exec) and the significant in-depth info about the company? HighKing++ 16:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is that no source that quotes an interview can be an RS? Wow. That's... novel. Please supply the policy that suggests that to be true. Even if it were policy, the Sprudge and CNBC articles were not entirely based on interviews with Butler. Fillari included an interview after a clear and independent summary of the company, and Young included quite a bit that he does not attribute to the Butler, including the Spotify entrepreneur info. Please provide your RS that shows the author [is] related to the company, organization, or product or that a related party produce[d] a narrative that [was] then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by Fillari and Young. As for GMA, you must have watched a different clip. The quoted one is about the collaboration between Van Leeuwen and Bigface with a heavy focus on the history and character of the latter. You keep saying that the sources fail SIRS and NCORP with no evidence at all other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To misquote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those policies. I do not think they mean what you think they mean." SIRS is very specific, and all three sources I mentioned (and most of the others in the article) match its definition. Ditto for NCORP. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I forgot that you also asked for a quote. From Fillari: "What began as a 2020 NBA bubble pop-up is now the official coffee brand for the players and VIP lounges at the Masters and WTA 1000 events in Miami, some of the biggest tennis tournaments in the world outside the four Majors... Located in the North Sideline Club of Hard Rock Stadium, BIGFACE has carved-out an immersive coffee experience that appeals to all coffee drinkers." Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my position. Articles can of course include quotes/interviews but there must also be significant in-depth content *about the company* that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is just PR bumpf - he's pretty good at that. The Shopify (not spotify) info is about Butler, not the company, so irrelevant. The GMA clip is entirely based on an interview and they show a clip in the article which I mentioned. Looking just at the text of the article, it is attributable to people connected with the company (partners, etc). The section of NCORP which provides the basis is the WP:ORGIND section (which I pointed to above). It requires independent content - that is content that is *clearly* *attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject. The "quote" you've provided is a summary in the lead-in to the interview and likely provided as part of the interview or press pack. It is insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH, even taking them as CORPDEPTH they're only a couple of sentences. Here's much the same information provided ahead of another interview from Butler a couple of days later. Maybe try finding a source which doesn't rely on Butler and Bigface for all the information? HighKing++ 20:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, I kindly ask that you step back. If you have replied to half the people who disagree with you it may be time to step back a little. As you have used the same argument to every single person who has disagreed with your specific reading of policy (one with which I and other editors disagree) I am asking that you do so. Please and thank you. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do that, it's trying to find a balance, especially in circumstances where I've been name-checked in the reopen by the previous closing admin. It would also be easy to disengage if editors didn't misrepresent guidelines and what I've said. For example, you say lots here have disagreed with my "specific reading" of NCORP - but nobody here has pointed to an alternative reading which has consensus. Oblivy posited an alternative earlier above but didn't find support at NCORP Talk where that novel interpretation was discussed. Your position appears to have been to challenge the existence of a section that supports the interpretation above (which is the community consensus position), and then when that section was specifically pointed out to you, your response is a request I step back because of BLUDGEON. OK. Having clarified those points I won't engage with you further if that is your wish. HighKing++ 10:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two modest points, as like HighKing I've already said a lot in this discussion:
  • there may be a vanishingly fine line between disagreeing with an editor about their position and "misrepresent[ing] guidelines and what I've said", particularly when what the editor said can be found in the same discussion thread; and
  • consensus can change is policy, and arguing for a reading of policy that hasn't necessarily reached consensus should be encouraged, particularly where that interpretation has been advanced by a large number of editors in other discussions.
Oblivy (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individual AfDs are not really the appropriate place to advocate for wide ranging changes to PAG. For one, my understanding of how OUTCOMES has been applied more recently is that AfDs should typically be read narrowly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the suggestion it was not OK for editors to discuss a possible application of policy wording in the face of a claim there's some consensus the words should be interpreted in another way. Apologies if I gave the impression I was proposing a policy or guideline change. And I agree, if policy/guideline wording needs to be changed that discussion should take place elsewhere. Oblivy (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I'm not sure Sprudge even counts as a RS. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bigface&oldid=1179989973"