Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 5

HappyFunCorp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted based on only 5 votes, which basically stated that the company (HappyFunCorp) is not notable enough to deserve a page. Based on the Wikipedia guidelines, I believe HFC is more than deserving of a page, and they have received even more reliable 3rd party press since the page's deletion. I ask that the page be restored, new sources added and the language be reviewed to ensure it is not PR or publicity. Cheers! Also, please note I'm writing this for deletion review because the admin (User:Randykitty) who deleted this page says he won't be active on Wikipedia for a while. ^HappyFunCorp Imarapaholic (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination edited to avoid impression that RandyKitty signed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Let's keep this simple. Could you provide the two or three best sources here? By best, I mean those sources which most clearly meet the requirements of WP:RS and serve to demonstrate notability. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Essentially unanimous outcome based on arguments soundly grounded in policy. Take any new draft to WP:AFC. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Please do not take a new draft to WP:AFC. Instead, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Yes, it is a great company that deserves a page, just not on Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The deletion discussion received an above-average amount of attention, and was unanimous. Any possible recreation would need to be preceded by specifying and linking to the alleged sources, rather than merely asserting they exist. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (User:RoySmith) and (User:Stifle). HappyFunCorp is mentioned in numerous publications, including Forbes, Inc., TechCrunch, FastCompany and BK Mag. Here are a few links to sources: http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/12/built-in-brooklyn-happyfuncorp/ - http://www.bkmag.com/2014/07/15/a-technology-academy-grows-in-brooklyn/ - http://www.fastcompany.com/3045128/passion-to-profit/this-web-development-shops-passion-project-injecting-your-company-culture- - http://www.forbes.com/sites/shanerobinson/2012/11/01/who-should-you-hire-to-build-your-web-startup-tips-for-non-technical-tech-entrepreneurs/.

Thank you for posting those. I took a look at all four. I tend not to put much weight in TechCrunch or FastCompany articles when it comes to establishing notability. Both of them largely react to company-supplied press releases, so they're not good sources of independent coverage. Brooklyn Magazine is local coverage, so I don't give that much weight either. Forbes is clearly a significant publication and a high-quality WP:RS, but this is a passing mention. The name of the company is mentioned once, and buried many paragraphs into the article. I just don't see this adding up to the standards of WP:N. Overall, I'd have to give this a weak endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the !vote was unanimous against the article creator. No other outcome was possible. The sources shown up here are dubious, at best. The "Forbes" piece is a blog post ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" clearly visible disclaimer at the top)... Kraxler (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (User:RoySmith for looking through the sources. Alas, if you have written off TechCrunch (a major news source for Tech SMBs) as a good source, then I'd have to agree with your notion that HappyFunCorp has not received enough coverage to warrant a page. As to the standards of WP:N to which you alluded to, I have read through the notability guidelines several times (see my user talk) and found nothing detailing such a "standard." HFC has more than 15 pieces of reliable third-party press - I have seen many pages with weaker sources and much more bias which have not been flagged. This company is notable, plus cool!, and as soon as they receive more press I will reach out again. Thank you very much for your help.

Saryu Usui (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(see below) Esquivalience ^t 20:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants: Spartaz, T Kanagawa T, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, MichaelQSchmidt. Esquivalience ^t 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non consensus closes are almost by definition not suitable for a non-admin close and you seem to have closed by the numbers not by the arguments. As the bad wolf pointed out, the keep side were characterised by an argument that Japanese language speakers were required rather than providing any reliable sources of their own - which is hardly a policy based argument to overcome delete votes based on analysis of the sources. I was surprised that rather than address the issue with HW you came straight here and I have to say, your response seemed rather unflexible and arrogant. You should have simply voided the close and left it to an admin to close. This is, after all, what this discussion should do. My vote is overturn and reclose by admin. That doesn't need a seven day discussion, any passing admin can do that now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This AfD seems to be mostly an argument over whether WP:GNG is met. It's met if there are secondary sources, and a number of potential sources are linked; unfortunately, those sources are in Japanese, so it's hard to tell if they're valid or not. It's incorrect to assume that all the sources are necessarily incorrect just because we can't read them. Likewise, it's also incorrect to assume that there's any relevance to the sources, again because we can't read them. As a result the AfD can't be decisively closed until someone who understands Japanese turns up. In the past (when I was last heavily involved with AfD, many years ago), the usual option would have been to leave the AfD open, with !votes like "Wait". A WP:NPASR close has pretty much identical behaviour to repeated relisting (i.e. wait until someone can verify that the subject does or doesn't meet notability guidelines), and has the neatness advantage that the AfD doesn't stay unclosed for ages, so it seems like a perfectly reasonable close in this case. --ais523 22:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn per Spartaz and per my comments on the would-be closer's talk page.
  • First of all, this was a controversial deletion discussion, and wasn't suitable for a non-administrator close. Esquivalience has made no effort to provide even a token explanation as to why their departure from policy is justified.
  • Second, Esquivalience cast a supervote rather than evaluating consensus. There certainly was no consensus support in the AFD for the idea that Wikipedians fluent in the native language must contribute to a discussion on a subject from a non-English-speaking country for the discussion to be valid, and no grounding whatever in policy. Once again, Esquivalience makes no attempt to justify their action.
  • Third, Esquivalience didn't come close to properly weighing consensus. There were three !voters and one commenter in the discussion. Two experienced users argued for deletion, citing policy and guidelines in some detail. One extremely inexperienced user (making only their 16th edit) !voted keep making a general argument about pornography in Japan, without attempting to assess the specific performer's notability. The experienced commenter argued that because so many non-English-language turn up in Google searches, we should wait for a Japanese-speaking editor to review the many, many Japanese-language sources and evaluate/translate them -- but if no editor has volunteered after a sufficient period of time, it will be acceptable to "let a possible deletion be without prejudice for a return when such is done", which isthe standard delete outcome. It's been a month since the discussion opened, and no Japanese-speaking volunteer has come forward. All but one of the discussion participants apparently find a routine delete outcome -- not article salting -- acceptable. It's quite hard to accurately read that outcome as no consensus or, as Esquivalience now grudgingly admits, a slight delete consensus".
  • Fourth, Esquivalience's close is a clear departure from consensus in similar AFDs. Seven or eight similar AFDs regarding Japanese porn performers have closed in the last month or so, without following the principle that Esquivalience says governs. Note in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka, which while not an exact parallel develops the underlying issue in some detail. I pointed this discussion out on E's talk page, but they again refused to discuss.
  • And, further, I've never seen a DRV opened like this. The would-be closer refused to provide a policy/guideline-based rationale on their talk page, refused to engzge in discussion, and instead game here with an opening statement that evades the substantive issues and instead casts needless aspersions on the editor challenging the outcome. That's grossly unacceptable, and deserves at the least a stern warning that any recurrence of such misbehaviour will not be tolerated. If I'd made comparable comments about a closer the DRV would be summarily shut down and I'd probably be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I am not accusing you of anything, and WP:NPASR (is part of WP:DELPRO, which is a guideline) means that there is no definite consensus. I closed it on the basis that there was a slight delete consensus, but more discussion is needed. I am only opening this DRV because I am looking for community input, and your accusations of "gaming the system" and "not providing a policy/guideline-based rationale" are empty and baseless. If you would like to take it to AN(I), which is the next step if proper dispute resolution can't take place, you can, but nonetheless this would better be judged by the community. Esquivalience ^t 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't rewrite history. Your nomination was sarcastic about HWs request - really - and actually, this is a classic example of a discussion not suitable for a non admin. The fact that you came running here instead of addressing HWs well reasoned and reasonably put policy based objections shows that dealing with this close was beyond you. Instead of vague waves to the community you should just admit your error and void your close for an admin to reclose it. Your conduct here is not what I would expect for someone stepping into fill an admin role. Perhaps you should consider that... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am overturning the non-admin close here and reclosing as Delete. (WP:NACD suggests reopening the discussion, but as this one has been relisted three times already I don't think that's a good idea.) While it would certainly be preferable to have a Japanese speaker look for sources to demonstrate notability, notability requires verifiable evidence and an assertion that there may be sources available cannot ultimately counter an argument for deletion based on the notability guidelines. WP:NPASR is for closing discussions with very limited participation, this one had four participants which is enough to get round that and it certainly doesn't support closing a discussion based on the language skills of the participants. I will leave this discussion open in case anyone else wants to review this. Hut 8.5 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not an unreasonable close, but an NAC should be reverted on any reasonable request. They should be for clear cut cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Had Hut not done anything I would've said Overturn & Delete - To be fair it had been relisted 3 times and didn't gain much !votes and the Keep !vote wasn't really relevent to the AFD so atleast in my eyes it was an obvious delete. (Thanks Hut 8.5 for reclosing/deleting.). –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After some (lots) of thought into this closure, I must agree fully that my actions within this AfD closure was sub-optimal, really suboptimal, and falls behind the civility required to maintain a collegial environment on Wikipedia. Sarcasm and ignorance just isn't productive, and I exactly did just that. I apologize to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for my comments which could reasonably and fully be construed as needless attacking; thank you Hut 8.5 for taking the time to assess the merits of this close. Esquivalience ^t 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Russian air raids in Syria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was not duplicate article. It was subtopic (airstrikes) in a broader topic (intervention). It was created on 30 September, not as fork. Deleted by Materialscientist without correct discussion (only 1 hour after it was started on night), without merging etc. Please restore and send back to AfD for giving of arguments by another users. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Not held open for the minimum duration. I personally believe the article should be deleted under NOTNEWS, but process is important. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Not eligible for A10, and a deletion discussion needs to be kept open for more than eighty minutes and one comment beyond the nominator. Unlikely to survive, but that doesn't justify ignoring process requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The encyclopedia is not improved by allowing a culture of high handed hasty decisions by administrators. The community must be allowed input. Leave it open seven days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, if it is "Clearly ... an unneeded fork", then there should be a cavalcade of "Delete" options making a snow close a possibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and trout. Being an unneeded fork is not a WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on process, as I agree that this was not discussed for sufficient time. Mamyles (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It was two paragraphs long, cut and pasted from another article. It really should have been speedied rather than AfDed; Materialscientist made the correct call given the out-of-control number of useless WP:NOTNEWS content forks about this subject (currently the subject of an ANI) which is only a week old. There is no point in wasting the community's time; everyone on this thread agrees it should be deleted, so it was and is a SNOW however you look at it. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It really should have been speedied" Under which CSD criterion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The point of WP:NOTNEWS to discourage routine news coverage such as ordinary weather or celebrity parties. The topic was notable and the air strikes were considered significant enough to appear on the main page in WP:ITN. There was therefore no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Clearly, this was a supervote, not a proper close. It's also a faulty conclusion because, per WP:CFORK, forks are addressed by merger not deletion. I queried the close at the time. That was 8 days ago and there's still no reply here or there. Per WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Andrew D. (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]