- 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 due to low participation. No prejudice to a re-nomination to see if a future discussion can attract more participants and form a consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ethnic Business Awards ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and means of its creation is highly suspicious MaskedSinger ( talk) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - taking issue with the way an article was created 10 years ago is probably not a particularly helpful deletion rationale. St★lwart 111 05:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – The lamentable edit history of this article is no reason to delete an article about an organization that is regularly covered in the ethnic media in Australia. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Is it @ Stalwart111:? This page and the page of the awards' creator, Joseph Assaf appear as though they were edited by sock puppets and/or those with undeclared COI. The editor commenting to keep was also so passionate about referencing these awards on someone else's page. WP:DUCK MaskedSinger ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- MaskedSinger: You need to be more careful with your phrasing. I wasn't "passionate", just objecting to unfounded removal of sourced content. I expect a retraction of your "DUCK" smear. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
07:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Michael Bednarek: I can only comment on the facts in front of me. There was a back and forth whether or not something belonged on a person's page. Instead of raising a discussion on the talk page or on a noticeboard you continually added the content back. I have to admit, when I flagged the page for deletion, I was wondering how you would respond and you commented to keep. So now there's been two cases when content pertaining to the Ethnic Business Awards has been flagged and both times you've come out in defense of the content staying on Wikipedia. At best, this is highly dubious. If you have an undeclared COI, best to come out and say it now. As for me, I honestly couldn't care one way or another whether the page stays here or not. If it stays, it should significantly be improved. In its current shape, it has no place here.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- (This is getting way off-topic here.) No, I didn't have to raise the restoration of sourced material on the article's talk page; the anonymous editors who removed it had to.
WP:V and
WP:BURDEN work both ways. Your continued slurs are affronting. Your stance seems contradictory: "couldn't care" vs AfD? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize @
Michael Bednarek: if I upset you. I apologize if I offended you. All I want is the best for Wikipedia. I did AFd so the page would be improved or removed. Staying as it is in its current form isn't an option.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
10:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which is why we have WP:BEFORE and why problems that can be resolved by editing, should be. If the article needs work, work on the article. If you don't believe the article meets WP:GNG, it would be helpful to explain why you believe that to be the case. But the genesis of the article, decade-old possible involvement by WP:SPAs or sock-puppets, and the current quality of the article aren't really reasons for deletion. St★lwart 111 12:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize @
Michael Bednarek: if I upset you. I apologize if I offended you. All I want is the best for Wikipedia. I did AFd so the page would be improved or removed. Staying as it is in its current form isn't an option.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
10:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- (This is getting way off-topic here.) No, I didn't have to raise the restoration of sourced material on the article's talk page; the anonymous editors who removed it had to.
WP:V and
WP:BURDEN work both ways. Your continued slurs are affronting. Your stance seems contradictory: "couldn't care" vs AfD? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Michael Bednarek: I can only comment on the facts in front of me. There was a back and forth whether or not something belonged on a person's page. Instead of raising a discussion on the talk page or on a noticeboard you continually added the content back. I have to admit, when I flagged the page for deletion, I was wondering how you would respond and you commented to keep. So now there's been two cases when content pertaining to the Ethnic Business Awards has been flagged and both times you've come out in defense of the content staying on Wikipedia. At best, this is highly dubious. If you have an undeclared COI, best to come out and say it now. As for me, I honestly couldn't care one way or another whether the page stays here or not. If it stays, it should significantly be improved. In its current shape, it has no place here.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- MaskedSinger: You need to be more careful with your phrasing. I wasn't "passionate", just objecting to unfounded removal of sourced content. I expect a retraction of your "DUCK" smear. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
07:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 due to low participation. No prejudice to a re-nomination to see if a future discussion can attract more participants and form a consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ethnic Business Awards ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and means of its creation is highly suspicious MaskedSinger ( talk) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - taking issue with the way an article was created 10 years ago is probably not a particularly helpful deletion rationale. St★lwart 111 05:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – The lamentable edit history of this article is no reason to delete an article about an organization that is regularly covered in the ethnic media in Australia. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Is it @ Stalwart111:? This page and the page of the awards' creator, Joseph Assaf appear as though they were edited by sock puppets and/or those with undeclared COI. The editor commenting to keep was also so passionate about referencing these awards on someone else's page. WP:DUCK MaskedSinger ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- MaskedSinger: You need to be more careful with your phrasing. I wasn't "passionate", just objecting to unfounded removal of sourced content. I expect a retraction of your "DUCK" smear. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
07:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Michael Bednarek: I can only comment on the facts in front of me. There was a back and forth whether or not something belonged on a person's page. Instead of raising a discussion on the talk page or on a noticeboard you continually added the content back. I have to admit, when I flagged the page for deletion, I was wondering how you would respond and you commented to keep. So now there's been two cases when content pertaining to the Ethnic Business Awards has been flagged and both times you've come out in defense of the content staying on Wikipedia. At best, this is highly dubious. If you have an undeclared COI, best to come out and say it now. As for me, I honestly couldn't care one way or another whether the page stays here or not. If it stays, it should significantly be improved. In its current shape, it has no place here.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- (This is getting way off-topic here.) No, I didn't have to raise the restoration of sourced material on the article's talk page; the anonymous editors who removed it had to.
WP:V and
WP:BURDEN work both ways. Your continued slurs are affronting. Your stance seems contradictory: "couldn't care" vs AfD? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize @
Michael Bednarek: if I upset you. I apologize if I offended you. All I want is the best for Wikipedia. I did AFd so the page would be improved or removed. Staying as it is in its current form isn't an option.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
10:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which is why we have WP:BEFORE and why problems that can be resolved by editing, should be. If the article needs work, work on the article. If you don't believe the article meets WP:GNG, it would be helpful to explain why you believe that to be the case. But the genesis of the article, decade-old possible involvement by WP:SPAs or sock-puppets, and the current quality of the article aren't really reasons for deletion. St★lwart 111 12:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize @
Michael Bednarek: if I upset you. I apologize if I offended you. All I want is the best for Wikipedia. I did AFd so the page would be improved or removed. Staying as it is in its current form isn't an option.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
10:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- (This is getting way off-topic here.) No, I didn't have to raise the restoration of sourced material on the article's talk page; the anonymous editors who removed it had to.
WP:V and
WP:BURDEN work both ways. Your continued slurs are affronting. Your stance seems contradictory: "couldn't care" vs AfD? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Michael Bednarek: I can only comment on the facts in front of me. There was a back and forth whether or not something belonged on a person's page. Instead of raising a discussion on the talk page or on a noticeboard you continually added the content back. I have to admit, when I flagged the page for deletion, I was wondering how you would respond and you commented to keep. So now there's been two cases when content pertaining to the Ethnic Business Awards has been flagged and both times you've come out in defense of the content staying on Wikipedia. At best, this is highly dubious. If you have an undeclared COI, best to come out and say it now. As for me, I honestly couldn't care one way or another whether the page stays here or not. If it stays, it should significantly be improved. In its current shape, it has no place here.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- MaskedSinger: You need to be more careful with your phrasing. I wasn't "passionate", just objecting to unfounded removal of sourced content. I expect a retraction of your "DUCK" smear. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
07:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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.