Camac_Harps ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

An earlier version of this page appears to have been deleted back in 2018 because it was flagged as overly promotional. Is it possible to revert this to a draft status so I can edit it and bring it up to Wikipedia's standards, or is it gone forever and I should start a new page from scratch? Grn1749 ( talk) 21:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Question - Why would you want to start an article from a previous article that was deleted from both WP:G11 and WP:A7? That means that after the canned meat was thrown away, there was nothing left. If there is anything of substance to build a draft or an article, it isn't in the deleted article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• If you're interested in writing a new article about it then I suggest you start from scratch. The deleted article was written by the company using material taken from their website (e.g. here). While this isn't a copyright violation because they gave permission, the text was very promotional and would need to be mostly or entirely rewritten. Hut 8.5 11:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert McClenon and Hut 8.5: Thanks for the info. I'm not familiar with the deletion protocols so I wasn't sure if there was possibly anything usable left from the original page. Based on your comments I'll start a new page from scratch. Thanks! Grn1749 ( talk) 18:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Restart from scratch. Start with a minimum of two WP:GNG-meeting sources. Once notability and scope is established by independent reliably published secondary sources, move it to mainspace, and then add non-independent sourcing only to fill in details. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• This actually probably can be closed early, the original poster received an answer to their question and was satisfied with it. SportingFlyer T· C 23:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

TechEngage ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

TechEngage is a recognized news agency which is covered in in-depth by The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Unless you have an indication they are not reliable then they are acceptable sources. A quick glance suggests the Bizjournals and Kinza articles are examples that support GNG. 39.46.90.207 ( talk) 19:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• The DRV text doesn't allege an error by the closer, this isn't a place to re-litigate the AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The closer only considered SIGCOV and completely ignored the GNG. The site has significant coverage as per the above comment from reliable resources to consider GNG. Thanks RMSAJ ( talk) 01:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Significant coverage is a requirement of the WP:GNG. It is impossible to "ignore the GNG" by considering whether a specific element of the GNG has been met. SportingFlyer T· C 12:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse:
  • • This is a badly written appeal, but if it were a well-written appeal, I would endorse the close anyway, because the closer reached a well-reasoned conclusion.
    • This is also a self-contradictory appeal, because the appellant says that the closer only considered SIGCOV and ignored GNG; but SIGCOV is a necessary part of GNG, so that the closer determined that GNG was lacking because SIGCOV was lacking.
    • This appeal is re-litigation, and DRV is not for re-litigation.
    • I don't see a provision for Speedy Closure of a DRV because the appeal is absurd or bizarre, so maybe we just let it run for 7 days and endorse the close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the closer correctly summarized the consensus. While a reasonable participant might have !voted differently, there's nothing unusual about concluding that the sources weren't sufficiently independent/substantial for purposes of WP:NCORP (the correct standard) or for that matter the GNG. We don't review AfDs de novo. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus was to delete. If you think that was a mistake, wait six months, made a draft, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply