Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2020 April 28
2020 April 30 >

29 April 2020[edit]

  • BMI Gaming – Let's see if I can get this right. Consensus is to endorse the deletion. With respect to recreation, editors who commented on this aspect stated that recreation as a neutral, nonadvertey article would be OK if notability criteria are met but cautioned that many of the sources presented so far are not adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
BMI Gaming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD. An IP editor recently asked me to restore. Here is what they wrote:

Saw that the long-standing BMI Gaming was deleted recently. The main issue for the proposal appears to have been "They have no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources"
BMI Gaming has been featured in prominent, "reliable 3rd party sources" from national/international newspapers and magazines, to radio and tv shows, a list of which (including links to some articles still online) can be found here: [1], but a short list of prominent 3rd party sources who have written about the firm includes : The Atlantic (Jan 2015), BBC News (Aug 2011), PlayMeter (Oct 2007), Inc. Magazine (Sep 2007), US News & World Report (Aug 2007), USA Today (May 2007), Internet Retailer Magazine (May 2007), RePlay Magazine (Aug 2006), CNN / Anderson Cooper Live - TV (Aug 2006), Entrepreneur (Jun 2006), MSNBC (Oct 2005), Newsweek (Jul 2005), Sun Sentinal (July 2005), El Mundo (Jan 2005), New York Times (Jan 2005), El Pais (Jan 2005), Fortune Small Business (Nov 2004), CNN Money (Nov 2004), PBS/WXEL - TV (Oct 2004), Palm Beach Post (Sep 2004).
None of these articles and interviews has anything to do with "B2B" or "paid marketing" as some bizarre editor claimed, or have anything to do with "cheap press releases", or paid "Top 100 lists" - In fact, BMI Gaming was awarded the nation's only recognized small business award : The annual "INC 500" List of the Top 500 (now 5000) fastest growing private companies in America from INC Magazine in 2007, during a presentation at the Chicago Hilton, headlined by President Bill Clinton, as well as making the "Hot 100" list of fast growing firms issued yearly by accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCooper and Entrepreneur Magazine.
This page should be restored, as the reason for the deletion was completely unfounded, flawed and unjust. Many people used it for quick, quality information about this popular, international firm online, and in these days of crisis, small business need all the help it can get.. Would you please reconsider reversing the deletion, given the evidence of prominence submitted ? Thanks.

I stand by my close of consensus but neutrally present the IP's arguments about sources which were not part of the original discussion Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as the clear consensus in the discussion. It may be that small businesses need all the help that they can get, but it is not Wikipedia's job to do that. It is an encyclopedia. If there was to be an article it shouldn't be written with the objective of providing help to the business by advertising it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as proper interpretation of consensus, but potentially allow recreation with the aforementioned sources if it's done neutrally and not like advertising. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close itself was clear, and even the argument made for restoration feels promotional. A quick cross-check of some of the sources above doesn't give me confidence WP:NCORP is met. For instance, the Palm Beach Post 2004 article is just an interview with the CEO in the "Moving Up" part of the local newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - What could be done is to allow the unregistered editor's statement to be considered as a Keep !vote, and the deletion discussion can still be closed as Delete. So leave it as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel for the unregistered editor, because I can see why this seems unjust to them. As Wikipedians, we are under constant, unrelenting pressure to allow people to use our encyclopaedia for promotional or marketing purposes. We get an onslaught of it, every day, and we have an army of very diligent volunteers who clean it up -- sometimes doing nothing else with their volunteering time, and sometimes spending hours a day on it. If we didn't do that, then our encyclopaedia would drown in a quagmire of spam very quickly indeed. And that's why we're so grateful to those volunteers, and it's why we're careful not to undermine them. We aren't your web host and we won't allow ourselves to be used to promote your business.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD was unanimous, and there's no policy-based reason in the nomination to suggest any extenuating circumstances. Just for the sake of due diligence, I checked the first source mentioned, The Atlantic. I could find nothing in the Jan 2014 issue, however, this 2014 article has a name drop. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus at the AfD was clear, and could not have been clsoed otherwise, and at least one editor said that a WP:BEFORE search had been done for other sources, and nothign significant was found. The sources mentioned above were not discussed at the AfD, and since no links nor detailed bibliographic info has been given (exact date and title of article) I cannot easily check those sources now. However, there is nothing to prevent a new draft citing new sources, and written in a neutral way, from being created. If those sources do in fact pass WP:NCORP and establish the notability of the subject, it could be moved back to mainspace just as any valid draft might. I would advise the IP or any other inexperienced editor not to create this directly in the main article space, nor to move it there without either an AfC review or a review by an experienced editor here. Any version that passes or even comes close to passing NCORP will be "sufficiently different" from the deleted version that WP:CSD#G4 would not apply. (Based on the comment by RoySmith just above, i suspect the IP editor has confused mere passing mentions with significant coverage, but that is only a guess.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Found to fail WP:CORP. Fails WP:CORP. Having sources is not the requirement, read WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, the primary criterion is A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (Emphasis in original) When I wrote above about sources being needed, and mentioned that "passing mentions" were not enough, I was intending to imply that standard. If and only if the sources mentioned by the IP editor constitute such significant coverage, then there could be a valid article. So far no one has cited any such coverage. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the unanimous decision at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification) – Consensus is to overturn to no consensus, with only a minority endorsing the deletion and no obvious "killer" arguments in favour of endorsement. Main concern cited by the overturn !votes is that the close incorrectly discounted the keep arguments. Some editors suggested a relist, but others opposed it on the grounds that there was enough discussion and that a relist wouldn't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed way too early per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Due to the large amount of participation and the fact that it wasn't relisted, I believe it would've been a "no consensus" vote and not a delete. In fact, the closing admin admits his conclusion was "controversial". KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn There were arguments made that it had a lasting impact, there were arguments made that it didn't. Both were made in relatively equal strength. Should have been closed as "No consensus" or perhaps relisted. Restore the article with no prejudice against immediately taking it to AfD again if someone wants, since relisting an article a year after the fact is confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- as closing admin drv doesn't feel the right thing here given this was deleted a pretty long time ago. That said if there's feeling that another AfD might generate a stronger consensus, I have no problem with it being restored for that purpose. I didn't see anything approaching sustained coverage of the match presented in the last AFD, so would certainly nominate it myself if no one else did. Fenix down (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no time limit on a DRV and this was only six months ago. My concern really comes from your quote I am simply not seeing a convincing argument for GNG here. It's hard to tell from this sentence whether you've looked at the article and are using the close as a !vote, or if you're summing up the arguments of the keep !voters at GNG. Considering you're experienced and generally do a very good job at closing AfDs I'm sure it's the latter, but I think this could have been communicated more clearly. Your close would have been stronger if you were more specific as to why you discounted some of the keep !votes, especially considering there were sources presented late on in the discussion. I thought about taking this to DRV at the time but as you can tell from my !vote in the AfD, I don't ultimately care whether this is kept or deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn ideally it would have been relisted. A few sources came in late and there wasn't a consensus formed IMO. At this point I'd say overturn to NC with clear leave for anyone to list at AfD immediately. I'd suggest doing a pretty good WP:BEFORE first however. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - This was not an easy call, but the closer appears to have discounted the Keep arguments too much, and should have closed this as No Consensus, because there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to gather a clearer consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should have been relisted, as there was more than enough participation to inform a close. Where the case is about notability, and one side is contending that their sources are sufficient to pass the GNG, and the other is saying they're wrong, the closer does need to form a judgment about who's correct. That means the closer has to analyze the sources for themselves and confirm whether they're over the bar for WP:RS: there's no other way to do it. I'm not able to tell whether I agree with them because the article hasn't been tempundeleted.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Cryptic for the tempundelete. To me, that looks like routine coverage of a trivial sporting event that sports writers hope is dramatic enough to sell as "news". I think the closer got it right, personally.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you here - if a closer is having to look to the sources to figure out if they pass GNG or not, they should be !voting, not closing. If the article hasn't been relisted, the closer shouldn't be jumping to that sort of conclusion. Closers should only look at the consensus of the discussion, not do fact-finding. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It looks like a reasonable admin discretion rough consensus call of "delete". The delete arguments were stronger. Overall, the discussion was a mess of poor !votes and a lack of discussion, and I think relisting gave no hope for a better discussion. I routinely advocate for proponents to take a WP:THREE approach to recreation in draftspace. In the AfD, a number of sources were put forward, but without sufficient explanation of what what comment they made on the topic. Draftify, identify three WP:GNG-meeting sources, and stubify the article down to what is support by these three sources. In the sources added to the AfD, I don't see anywhere in any of them where the author of the story made a comment about the game, as opposed to mentioning facts about the game. And, that fact is just the result. Did anyone publish that it was a great game, a thrilling game, a disheartening game, a shocking game? Was there any crowd reaction? The deleted article has some unsourced commentary, but it is critical commentary on the losing team, not commentary on the game. I think this game is not notable, and that the last two sentences of the second last paragraph of United States men's national soccer team#2010–present is the appropriate level of coverage. An agonizing defeat, it was the team's worst performance in the history of the team. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The close is rather harsh given the inherent subjectivity of deciding whether something has lasting impact or not. The closing statement also seems to me to be conflating WP:GNG and WP:LASTING to produce a new standard whereby events have to pass the GNG using sources published well after the event. WP:EVENT doesn't actually say this. Hut 8.5 12:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Much has been made out of the quality of the sourcing. One source in particular was this one from mlssoccer.com. While it was accepted that the content in that source was good, a question was made as to whether it was independent. This is probably a gray area, but the subject involved a team from the United States Soccer Federation, which is not the same as Major League Soccer which is a competition between clubs. Yes, there are significant ties between them (so this is a gray area), but it is certainly more independent than, say, a press release from USSF would be. In total I think the arguments in the AFD were roughly balanced, and reasonable people can disagree on the quality of the sourcing. Not all the "delete" votes were all that well reasoned either, for example "Delete, no evidence of notability" doesn't really contribute much to the discussion. Such a situation usually defaults to a "no consensus" closure, and there is no clear policy-based reason to overrule that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (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/2020_April_29&oldid=1039542133"