I created this article due to a category I created (
Category:Welsh YouTubers) in 2021 being proposed for deletion. I had not heard of the YouTuber prior to this and I joined Wikipedia in 2020, so I could not have seen the 2017 deleted article of him. UtherSRG deleted the article because of
WP:G4, but it states that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". As I mentioned it is highly unlikely that I have seen the 2017 deleted article so any similarities would be coincidental and the deletion no longers applies as the subject has become more notable. I messaged UtherSRG on his talk page and he asked me to come here. If people think that the person is not notable then they can open a deletion request, I don't believe that speedy deletion was the right course of action. Sorry if I made mistakes, this is my first time at deletion review.
Sahaib (
talk)
19:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) -->reply
This is moot, the article has been undeleted by UtherSRG, but I'm a bit concerned the advice was to come here if G4 didn't apply considering the period of time involved.
SportingFlyerT·C 21:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) not moot, it was being undeleted for DRV.
SportingFlyerT·C21:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. It was a bad G4. The deleting admin’s response
: You should go to
WP:DRV to make your case for undeletion, and you should have gone there for recreating the article in the first place, especially given that it was previously G4'd as well. -
UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
should be repudiated, here. A prior G4 does NOT mean that a new recreation needs pre-clearance at DRV. DRV is not the gateway for creating new articles where previously deleted.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
21:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
here is a comparison between the speedy-deleted version and the version deleted at AFD. Overturn G4 with option to list at AFD. Clearly does not meet the criterion of "substantially the same".
Stifle (
talk)
08:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn (1) the article wasn't substantially the same, and (2) notability of this subject (who is young, and known for the very recent phenomenon of YouTube pranks) was extremely likely to have changed between 2017 and 2023: the previous deletion had no relevance. We all make mistakes, Trout and move on...
Elemimele (
talk)
17:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Overturn - The version that was deleted as G4 is substantially different from the version that was deleted after the AFD. The version that was deleted at AFD is better, and there is very little chance that the current version will survive AFD, but G4 does not apply.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
12:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Robert McClenon: the one deleted at the AfD was longer but I don't think it was necessarily better as it included unsourced parts and the sourcing consisted of some primary and not good sources. At
User:Sahaib/sandbox, I have copied some of the good sources from the draft and added some others not from the draft so I can expand the article. I don't think there is very little chance that it will survive an afd as it passes the general notability guidelines.
Sahaib (
talk)
14:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
William Street Bird – Decision resoundingly endorsed. The case to overturn to delete is well made by JML1148, Surfurboy and especially Nythar. But editors participating in this DRV are not persuaded by this case. The relevant notability guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. They inform our decisions, unlike policies, which bind them. In this discussion, the community finds that in the circumstances, RandyKitty was right to find that there was no consensus to delete.Several editors in this discussion thank RandyKitty for stepping up to make a difficult close. Those editors are encouraged to decorate Randykitty's talk page with the appropriate barnstars and felicitations.—
S MarshallT/
C14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This AfD was closed by RandyKitty as no consensus, and numerically, this is true. The argument for keep stemmed from Cunard, who linked a variety of sources. Nythar then provided a source assessment that, in my opinion, proved that all of the sources that Cunard linked failed
WP:SIGCOV. Then followed an extensive exchange between Nythar and Huggums537 that got uncivil, and a load of !votes for keep and delete. In my opinion, Nythar's sources assessment tables, and some questionable applications of policy means that the article should have been closed as delete. Willing to throw it out to another AfD. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs)
00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think we could've left a little more time for RandyKitty to respond to the talk page questions. They're normally a very good closer so this might not have needed to go to DRV. But for the record, I (involved) of course agree that this should not have been closed as NC, not least because the keep !votes all seem to hinge on meeting GNG when none of the sources meet the stricter requirements of NCORP. Another part of the problem is also that until yesterday, the AfD wasn't in the business and companies delsorts, so many of the editors actually familiar with NCORP would not have seen it. That I believe would be reason enough to relist, although given the total deficiency in the keep rationales a delete outcome would have been acceptable.
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
JoelleJay: It was my fault not putting it in the business or companies delsorts, and I also did not know about the questions on Randykitty's talk page, which I apologies for. Do you think we should re-open the AfD and let it run for another week? JML1148 (
talk |
contribs)
02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well if you had talked to RandyKitty they might have been willing to relist, but now that it's at DRV it's up to the usual DRV crew to judge. And unfortunately since the issue with the close has been framed as "didn't agree with SIGCOV source assessment" -- e.g. what people here would say is "relitigating the AfD" -- instead of the much more compelling problems of editors !voting based on non-NCORP rationales and NCORP editors not being notified, there's little chance it'll even be reopened let alone reclosed as delete.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse as an editor who supported retention in the AfD. This is
a summary of the sources from the "keep" perspective:
Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not
stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must "
stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.
You are quoting one of my many comments at the AfD, and you've chosen one where I didn't mention any guideline. Subjects don't need to "stand out" to be notable; I said that to illustrate a point. The subject isn't notable because the sources are completely trivial (i.e., not "significant coverage"), very local, or routine in coverage. The four sources you've linked to above, which I've already addressed countless times, do not contain "significant coverage"; not a single one, when assessed separately from the others, consists of any content that can be used in a Wikipedia article; they're wholly promotional and focus on food prices, minor performances, hyper-local events, and other trivialities. Nobody has yet addressed this point. The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement: only if they significantly cover the subject.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
16:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete: My concerns revolved around
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:SIRS. SIRS states that "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other" and that they must "meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability." One of those criteria indicates that at least one source must "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." CORPDEPTH describes which sources qualify as "significant and in-depth coverage." It states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The problem with the sources Cunard provided in that AfD is that, when each source is evaluated separately from the others, none of them pass any SIGCOV criteria. Take a look at them yourself (listed below). Not a single source passes any notability guideline, and this can clearly be seen by the simple fact that several of the sources (especially the top four) contain no content that can be used in a Wikipedia article (meaning they're composed of minor trivialities such as food and drink prices, the internal design of the venue, etc. Such sources cannot be "significant coverage"; they'd be considered "trivial coverage", which is the opposite of SIGCOV. How can a source that's so promotional and trivial that it can hardly even be used in an article, be "significant coverage"? Well, it can't be. They simply don't focus on the venue's ownership history, its operational history, contain a neutral account of its cultural significance, prove that it's notable beyond Perth, or contain anything else that would indicate they "significantly cover" the venue. And the rest of the sources are either routine in coverage or are very local:
Source examination
The first source is both trivial in coverage and falls under "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)," meaning it is local in coverage, so it fails
WP:AUD:
IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here. But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices. The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint. The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over. The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20). Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red. The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge. THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2
The second source is also very trivial in coverage, and no part of it can be used in an article:
IT'S a sea of drainpipe jeans and plaid T-shirts as we wade through the boisterous crowd at The Bird. It’s thumping inside Northbridge’s newest bar and everyone wants in. Many have come for the music – it’s like the Ellington Jazz Club for people who are too young to know who Quincy Jones is. Others are here for the infectious brand of nouveau grunge Northbridge is quickly perfecting. Either way, the struggles had by owner Mike O’Hanlon just to open the doors look to have been well worth his while. Cooped up Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard. Export quality Such is the scattergun approach to The Bird’s drinks list, the entire thing could be filed under “miscellaneous”. There are a few mixed drinks on offer, but it’s too loud to hear the bartender, so don’t bother. Better choices are available from the small wine list, but the beer selection is the way to go. Where else can you find cans of Emu Export next to Knappstein’s excellent Reserve Lager, Coopers Dark Ale and king browns of Little Creatures and Magners cider? It’s clever stuff this – deliberately eschewing mass-marketed brands that would be an insult to the hyper-stylish crowd. Bird in the hand There are those who still maintain Northbridge has no legitimately alternative venues, but The Bird has joined an important contingent who are voraciously shouting down this noisy majority. Joining the likes of Ezra Pound, 399 and the planned expansion of the “new” William St, there has never been a better time to get a drink north of the CBD. The Bird 181 William St, Northbridgewww.williamstreetbird.comOpen Tues-Sun noon-late The Score: Four stars
The third source is also very trivial in coverage and no part of it can be used in an article:
The Bird isn’t just one of Perth’s coolest small bars. In the 1920s what’s now the courtyard was a brothel. It later became a butcher, and the black charring from smoked meats can still be seen on the back brick wall. A spectacles store moved in more recently, then, in 2010, a group of mates gutted the place and made it one of the city’s best live-music haunts. The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs. Inside, wooden banquettes and velvet settees seat punters clutching tap beers and carefully prepared cocktails. The drink choices represent the look and feel of the place: shabby chic with chutzpah. Phone:(08) 6142 3513 Website:web.archive.org
The fourth source is also trivial in coverage and is written like an advertisement, and I'm not entirely sure this is a reliable source:
The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years. With raw exposed brick, op-shop furniture, well-worn wooden floorboards and a slew of hyper-stylish bearded men drinking tinnies of Emu Export, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were at a rough-and-ready house party — till you see the music lineup. The Bird draws some seriously impressive acts and is a great place to catch the latest local EP launch. With a small 150-cap band room, it fills up quick on Friday and Saturday nights. You'll see a few familiar faces in the crowd over the weekend — this place is frequented by many of Perth's up-and-coming musicians. In fact, one of the guys from Methyl Ethel runs sound most nights. If you're more of a participant than a listener, on the second Thursday of every month The Bird hosts the incredibly popular hip hop karaoke. This isn't your ordinary karaoke night, with punters going all-out to compete for first place. Free before 8pm and $5 after, it's the best-value live music entertainment you can get in the west.
The fifth source is a list of four "Venues Where Western Australia Loves To Party", and this is its entire, trivial coverage of the Bird:
The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows. The space is split between the main room and bar, and a low-key courtyard offering an open-air space for drinkers and conversationalists to do their thing. Peter Bibby, The Ocean Party, Terrible Truths, Methyl Ethel and The Shabbab are just a handful of acts who’ve brought in big crowds and the vibes to match.
The sixth source is part of a list of "The Best Live Music Venues WA Has To Offer" and is extremely short, trivial, and lacking in terms of significant coverage:
Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us.
The seventh source is an article published by the Western Independent, a newspaper operated by students at
Curtin University. It is thus hyper-local and fails
WP:AUD, so it alone cannot be used to indicate notability.
The eighth source is 100% routine coverage, titled "The Bird fights early closing time"; even if it wasn't routine in coverage, it doesn't actually focus on the venue itself.
It appears that this non-notable venue is being lifted up to the level of notability simply because sources exist; however, none of these sources, when examined alone, can be considered to be "significant coverage", not per any SNG guideline or per the GNG.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
01:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse The closer is not supposed to make a judgement on whether the sourcing meets the notability requirementThe closer is expected to determine whether there is consensus about whether the sourcing meets our community's notability requirement. In this case, participants were equally passionate in their position whether the sources met NCORP/GNG (and pointed to policy in their comments). A no consensus close is quite appropriate in this case. --
Enos733 (
talk)
04:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The disagreement wasn't so much on whether the sources met NCORP as on whether GNG supersedes NCORP. In that case the issue boils down to who has interpreted the policy correctly.
Avilich (
talk)
05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Enos733, I appreciate your point, which is quite right, but would you consider the points I make below please? My issue with this close is not the result so much as the way it has happened. There were procedural problems with this close.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse Is there enough coverage to make a sensible article of the topic? Clearly so, because we have one. A Keep outcome would also have been reasonable, because it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by
WP:NCORP.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Is there enough coverage by independent, non-local media? The venue is a corporation, it has to meet NCORP; it can't do that with reviews from the same city it is located.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it's actually not established that it has to meet NCORP. Your procrustean expansivism is uncompelling and would serve to eviscerate the encyclopedia, rather than simply do what is within NCORP's remit: keep spammy startups off the 'pedia.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our
literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for
organizations and companies. NCORP defines what is independent SIGCOV for organizations; if a source does not meet NCORP requirements it can't count toward NCORP or GNG. If this wasn't the case then the guidelines at NCORP would serve absolutely no purpose.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Once again, you're arguing sourcing when it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by WP:NCORP. If NCORP covers everything except that which is covered by a separate SNG, then the GNG is toast. It's clear that NCORP is being applied overly expansively, so I don't really care what it says until and unless it is established that this sort of thing is exactly what the community wanted, again, rather than just to keep spammy startups off the 'pedia. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk)
03:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Entertainment venues are not called out in NCORP. Corporate structure is not a key defining factor of what is covered in the article. NCORP doesn't get to encompass everything just because it lays claim to, nor to redefine RS for its own purposes.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Since when is a business not covered by NCORP?? It doesn't matter whether "corporate structure" is part of the article, that's not a requirement whatsoever and isn't even an aspect that's covered in most NCORP subjects like restaurants or bars, which WSB also is.
JoelleJay (
talk)
17:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You know what? You're right. There's a simpler answer: Per WP:N, corporations that meet CORP or the GNG are notable. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 1. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. We've been wasting all this time trying to box CORP back into its proper place as an SNG, when it never had permission to bypass the GNG in the first place.
Jclemens (
talk)
23:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:CORP held consensus before and independent of
WP:N, well ahead of the formulation of the
WP:GNG. WP:CORP does not derive authority from WP:N, although the language is aligned.
WP:CORP is about Wikipedia not being a venue for business promotion, and accordingly it gives more emphasis to the assessment of the sources.
I agree that much of the argument here, and at the AfD, is all wrong. The pertinent question is not whether the sources are local, but whether they are independent or non independent due to being tainted as a promotion. The sources were not well assessed for that, and so “no consensus” was the only valid close.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
00:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've been discussing notability here on Wikipedia for, um, about 16 years and don't remember things that way. N is N, and N still says GNG or SNG, so to the extent that anyone is arguing that a topic that fail NCORP and passes GNG fails N, they are wrong as N is currently written.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The original WP:CORP was premised on the need to resist advertising, although it used language that we recognise as WP:GNG-like, with independence featuring most prominently.
A top-level guideline need not predate subordinate guidelines, and age doesn't necessarily imply primacy. I don't doubt that CORP is old, but I do not recall seeing it enforced so ridiculously until recently--again, I normally deal with deletion discussions on pop culture stuff, so when I see these really bizarre arguments about CORP or sports SNGs, it's really foreign to me. It's in no way consistent with N as I understand and have used it; I literally cannot count the times I've noted the "SNG or GNG" in good faith. If you're telling me everything I believe about notability is a lie... you're going to have to find more convincing evidence.
Jclemens (
talk)
03:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is all a bit meta now. Take a step back and look. We now have an article all about a club in Perth. I am sure people enjoy going there. Will the club be there in a few years time? Will anything truly noteworthy happen there? Will anyone ever think its more than a club in Perth? Who knows (and we don't make articles in the hope it will be). There was a club like this in Croydon once. Quite a local buzz about it. I forget its name, but it doesn't matter. It is long gone, so I no longer care how much drinks cost there, or whether it is open on Wednesday nights, or who founded it. If it were notable, I am sure it would be mentioned on one of the Croydon pages, but it's not. Neither is the subject of this review mentioned on the
Perth page for that matter. If it's not notable for a mention, how is it notable for a page? It doesn't get mentioned in lists of top clubs in Perth
[1],
[2],
[3] although I guess it does get mentioned in an exhaustive list of all such clubs
[4]. If NCORP is there to keep advertising off the encyclopaedia, it has failed this time.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
06:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You and I have different definitions of what advertisement consists of. And yes, if NCORP is designed to keep advertisement that doesn't rise to G11 levels off of Wikipedia, the wording of N makes it entirely unfit for that purpose.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - I was involved and voted delete. However the question at DRV is not to relitigate the debate but to look at whether the close was correct. In this case there were serious enough concerns that I had already gone to the closer's talk page. I would have waited a little longer before opeing a DRV but the issues are these:
The case was a clear delete, both in number of !votes and the policy arguments made, but it was left open beyond the normal 1 week discussion, and it was in the extended period that 3 more keep votes were added. These added no new information or policy reasons, but were treated as simple votes, balancing the voting to allow a no consensus close. There is definitely an impression here (I am sure unintended), that the case was allowed to run on until the voting was stacked to no consensus.
Deletion is not a vote in any case. The policy arguments made were clear, and the bulk of the conversation was a meta argument from one commentator arguing why the policy should not be policy. This argument tehrefore conceded the point. The close statement was so brief that it did not justice to what was a very involved and careful look at the policy arguments.
As the case had been allowed to over-run, and with an unclear consensus, this should have at least been relisted.
A relist would be acceptable, but endorsing close is basically saying deletion policy does not matter. That is not a message we want to portray.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But again, the question is not whether we agree or disagree with the votes, but whether there is an impression that the AfD was improperly allowed to over-run until there was an exact balance of votes, and only closed at that point without any attempt to relist nor evaluate the arguments.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
09:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment from closer:
Sirfurboy, are you suggesting that I somehow waited until I got some desired !votes? In fact, I was looking at some AfDs that had not been handled after running 7 days. This one ran a decent time, with ample participation by multiple editors and there was no clear tendency towards a keep or delete that would make a relist worth while.
Cunard's summation of the debate is spot on. --
Randykitty (
talk)
12:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As I said above, I am sure it was unintended. Yet the close, not after one week nor after two, and just after the number of votes suddenly balanced, and with a very short closing summary, gives an impression that this was irregular. I would have preferred if, rather than this deletion review, it had just been re-opened, as per my comment on your talk page, as I am sure it could have been resolved amicably. Unfortunately you did not see that before this review was opened, sorry.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apology accepted. It wouldn't have changed anything anyway as I see no reason to change my close. That the AfD ran for more than 7 days does in no way mean that it must be relisted. As for an exact balance of !votes, that's new to me because
I didn't count the !votes. Even without those 3 late !votes, my close would have been "no consensus". I take offence by you characterizing my close as not evaluating the arguments. The discussion had produced huge walls of text (which I suspect may be related to the fact that no admin came around to close the discussion after the usual 7 days) and I waded through it all. My close does, I think, show that I evaluated the arguments of both sides. --
Randykitty (
talk)
14:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
While it isn't the responsibility of an AfD discussion closer to determine if the subject is notable, the closer should at least review the merits of !votes.
WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy [...] and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." <-- I am not saying that some !voters had no understanding of the matter; I am simply pointing out that there needs to be a somewhat thorough review of the !votes. Now, in regards to this particular AfD, some people (among whom I am one) assessed the sources and arrived at the conclusion that the subject wasn't notable. Others examined the sources and concluded that the subject was notable. One of the aspects of notability we discussed was SIGCOV in the context of GNG and CORPDEPTH. The closer is supposed to determine the consensus of the discussion by evaluating the merits of the policy claims. You wrote in your closing statement, "No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against", which is disappointing. So much effort was put into the discussion and the final closing statement doesn't even address how "good" any argument was.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you want a !vote-by-!vote evaluation from the closer, then I'm surely not the only one who is going to disappoint you. I don't intend to add to the wall of text that this DRV is degenerating to, similarly to the AfD. In that spirit, this will be my last comment here. --
Randykitty (
talk)
16:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree that Cunard's analysis is accurate.
The review in Sunday Times (a tabloid owned by News Corp) appears in the "home" and "real estate (Prestige Property)" sections and is written by a
Perth-based journalist focused on Perth bars. Its circulation is a full order of magnitude lower than the population of Perth itself; that decidedly fails the "local media or media of limited interest and circulation" part of AUD.
The review in Perth Now (owned by News Corp) is not independent from the other review under NewsCorp and was written by another journalist dedicated to Perth bar reviews. Local!
The review in Broadsheet is categorized in a sub-subsection of the Perth news outlet for Broadsheet, not the more national Food and Drink section. Local!
The Concrete Playground review is also in the "Perth bars" section, written by a music talent manager/PR marketer who would obviously have a financial interest in drumming up attendance at venues her clients play at! Not to mention: local.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak overturn to delete I don't think no consensus is necessarily a bad close - hence my "weak" - and I do want to commend Randykitty for wading in to close this, but having read that discussion I don't think the
WP:NCORP argument was successfully rebutted by those arguing for
WP:GNG, since NCORP applies a stricter guideline unless things have changed recently.
SportingFlyerT·C17:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse – No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer. It was, also, incidentally, the conclusion that I would have reached, but that is not important. The appellant seems to be sort of re-arguing the AFD by arguing that the closer didn't reach exactly the same conclusion as the appellant would have reached. This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. When there is no consensus among the participants in the AFD as to the status of the sources, No Consensus is a reasoned conclusion by the closer.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. That would be the case if we were assessing a non-corporate entity .
The DRV nom missed the biggest issues. Those were the fact that a) the AfD was not delsorted into the correct categories until the night before it was closed; b) keep editors largely ignored whether the topic met NCORP and instead insisted it "met GNG", which delete editors pointed out is irrelevant because the sources used failed the AUD requirements (the venue is in Perth, the coverage is in Perth, claims that the Perth newspapers are "regional" because they happen to also be distributed to the 8% of WA that doesn't live in the immediate Perth area are ridiculous; and moreover many delete !voters argued the coverage wasn't SIGCOV anyway).
JoelleJay (
talk)
18:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For the record, I think the fact that this AfD on a business wasn't in the business delsorts until the night before--hence all the !votes ignoring NCORP--is a very strong rationale for just relisting. I had gone to @
Randykitty's talk page to request exactly that, then saw the close had already been brought up for other reasons.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse (no consensus). Opposing arguments were continuing with no indication of converging. Some fresh air is needed. Follow the advice at
WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination was too brief, try better next time. An abundance of sources were considered, but it looks to me that their possible failing quality, independence, was not well considered. A review can be failed for being nonindependent as a customer review and a too-close primary source, but there is clearly no consensus that by merely being a review it should be excluded, or that local newspapers should be excluded. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I had commented on the AfD and likely would have !voted delete had I decided to submit one but the discussion could reasonably be read as no consensus. Could this also have been closed as delete, keep or relisted? Maybe. I'm not sure I would consider relisting this even had I not commented. Trying my best to be neutral, delete seems more plausible than keep to my eye, but that is not in itself sufficient to overturn the close.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse I voted redirect and stand by my opinion. But there clearly was not consensus not to keep. There were solid policy-based votes on both sides. FrankAnchor18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I created this article due to a category I created (
Category:Welsh YouTubers) in 2021 being proposed for deletion. I had not heard of the YouTuber prior to this and I joined Wikipedia in 2020, so I could not have seen the 2017 deleted article of him. UtherSRG deleted the article because of
WP:G4, but it states that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". As I mentioned it is highly unlikely that I have seen the 2017 deleted article so any similarities would be coincidental and the deletion no longers applies as the subject has become more notable. I messaged UtherSRG on his talk page and he asked me to come here. If people think that the person is not notable then they can open a deletion request, I don't believe that speedy deletion was the right course of action. Sorry if I made mistakes, this is my first time at deletion review.
Sahaib (
talk)
19:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) -->reply
This is moot, the article has been undeleted by UtherSRG, but I'm a bit concerned the advice was to come here if G4 didn't apply considering the period of time involved.
SportingFlyerT·C 21:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) not moot, it was being undeleted for DRV.
SportingFlyerT·C21:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. It was a bad G4. The deleting admin’s response
: You should go to
WP:DRV to make your case for undeletion, and you should have gone there for recreating the article in the first place, especially given that it was previously G4'd as well. -
UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
should be repudiated, here. A prior G4 does NOT mean that a new recreation needs pre-clearance at DRV. DRV is not the gateway for creating new articles where previously deleted.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
21:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
here is a comparison between the speedy-deleted version and the version deleted at AFD. Overturn G4 with option to list at AFD. Clearly does not meet the criterion of "substantially the same".
Stifle (
talk)
08:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn (1) the article wasn't substantially the same, and (2) notability of this subject (who is young, and known for the very recent phenomenon of YouTube pranks) was extremely likely to have changed between 2017 and 2023: the previous deletion had no relevance. We all make mistakes, Trout and move on...
Elemimele (
talk)
17:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Overturn - The version that was deleted as G4 is substantially different from the version that was deleted after the AFD. The version that was deleted at AFD is better, and there is very little chance that the current version will survive AFD, but G4 does not apply.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
12:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Robert McClenon: the one deleted at the AfD was longer but I don't think it was necessarily better as it included unsourced parts and the sourcing consisted of some primary and not good sources. At
User:Sahaib/sandbox, I have copied some of the good sources from the draft and added some others not from the draft so I can expand the article. I don't think there is very little chance that it will survive an afd as it passes the general notability guidelines.
Sahaib (
talk)
14:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
William Street Bird – Decision resoundingly endorsed. The case to overturn to delete is well made by JML1148, Surfurboy and especially Nythar. But editors participating in this DRV are not persuaded by this case. The relevant notability guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. They inform our decisions, unlike policies, which bind them. In this discussion, the community finds that in the circumstances, RandyKitty was right to find that there was no consensus to delete.Several editors in this discussion thank RandyKitty for stepping up to make a difficult close. Those editors are encouraged to decorate Randykitty's talk page with the appropriate barnstars and felicitations.—
S MarshallT/
C14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This AfD was closed by RandyKitty as no consensus, and numerically, this is true. The argument for keep stemmed from Cunard, who linked a variety of sources. Nythar then provided a source assessment that, in my opinion, proved that all of the sources that Cunard linked failed
WP:SIGCOV. Then followed an extensive exchange between Nythar and Huggums537 that got uncivil, and a load of !votes for keep and delete. In my opinion, Nythar's sources assessment tables, and some questionable applications of policy means that the article should have been closed as delete. Willing to throw it out to another AfD. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs)
00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think we could've left a little more time for RandyKitty to respond to the talk page questions. They're normally a very good closer so this might not have needed to go to DRV. But for the record, I (involved) of course agree that this should not have been closed as NC, not least because the keep !votes all seem to hinge on meeting GNG when none of the sources meet the stricter requirements of NCORP. Another part of the problem is also that until yesterday, the AfD wasn't in the business and companies delsorts, so many of the editors actually familiar with NCORP would not have seen it. That I believe would be reason enough to relist, although given the total deficiency in the keep rationales a delete outcome would have been acceptable.
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
JoelleJay: It was my fault not putting it in the business or companies delsorts, and I also did not know about the questions on Randykitty's talk page, which I apologies for. Do you think we should re-open the AfD and let it run for another week? JML1148 (
talk |
contribs)
02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well if you had talked to RandyKitty they might have been willing to relist, but now that it's at DRV it's up to the usual DRV crew to judge. And unfortunately since the issue with the close has been framed as "didn't agree with SIGCOV source assessment" -- e.g. what people here would say is "relitigating the AfD" -- instead of the much more compelling problems of editors !voting based on non-NCORP rationales and NCORP editors not being notified, there's little chance it'll even be reopened let alone reclosed as delete.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse as an editor who supported retention in the AfD. This is
a summary of the sources from the "keep" perspective:
Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not
stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must "
stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.
You are quoting one of my many comments at the AfD, and you've chosen one where I didn't mention any guideline. Subjects don't need to "stand out" to be notable; I said that to illustrate a point. The subject isn't notable because the sources are completely trivial (i.e., not "significant coverage"), very local, or routine in coverage. The four sources you've linked to above, which I've already addressed countless times, do not contain "significant coverage"; not a single one, when assessed separately from the others, consists of any content that can be used in a Wikipedia article; they're wholly promotional and focus on food prices, minor performances, hyper-local events, and other trivialities. Nobody has yet addressed this point. The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement: only if they significantly cover the subject.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
16:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete: My concerns revolved around
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:SIRS. SIRS states that "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other" and that they must "meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability." One of those criteria indicates that at least one source must "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." CORPDEPTH describes which sources qualify as "significant and in-depth coverage." It states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The problem with the sources Cunard provided in that AfD is that, when each source is evaluated separately from the others, none of them pass any SIGCOV criteria. Take a look at them yourself (listed below). Not a single source passes any notability guideline, and this can clearly be seen by the simple fact that several of the sources (especially the top four) contain no content that can be used in a Wikipedia article (meaning they're composed of minor trivialities such as food and drink prices, the internal design of the venue, etc. Such sources cannot be "significant coverage"; they'd be considered "trivial coverage", which is the opposite of SIGCOV. How can a source that's so promotional and trivial that it can hardly even be used in an article, be "significant coverage"? Well, it can't be. They simply don't focus on the venue's ownership history, its operational history, contain a neutral account of its cultural significance, prove that it's notable beyond Perth, or contain anything else that would indicate they "significantly cover" the venue. And the rest of the sources are either routine in coverage or are very local:
Source examination
The first source is both trivial in coverage and falls under "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)," meaning it is local in coverage, so it fails
WP:AUD:
IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here. But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices. The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint. The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over. The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20). Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red. The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge. THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2
The second source is also very trivial in coverage, and no part of it can be used in an article:
IT'S a sea of drainpipe jeans and plaid T-shirts as we wade through the boisterous crowd at The Bird. It’s thumping inside Northbridge’s newest bar and everyone wants in. Many have come for the music – it’s like the Ellington Jazz Club for people who are too young to know who Quincy Jones is. Others are here for the infectious brand of nouveau grunge Northbridge is quickly perfecting. Either way, the struggles had by owner Mike O’Hanlon just to open the doors look to have been well worth his while. Cooped up Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard. Export quality Such is the scattergun approach to The Bird’s drinks list, the entire thing could be filed under “miscellaneous”. There are a few mixed drinks on offer, but it’s too loud to hear the bartender, so don’t bother. Better choices are available from the small wine list, but the beer selection is the way to go. Where else can you find cans of Emu Export next to Knappstein’s excellent Reserve Lager, Coopers Dark Ale and king browns of Little Creatures and Magners cider? It’s clever stuff this – deliberately eschewing mass-marketed brands that would be an insult to the hyper-stylish crowd. Bird in the hand There are those who still maintain Northbridge has no legitimately alternative venues, but The Bird has joined an important contingent who are voraciously shouting down this noisy majority. Joining the likes of Ezra Pound, 399 and the planned expansion of the “new” William St, there has never been a better time to get a drink north of the CBD. The Bird 181 William St, Northbridgewww.williamstreetbird.comOpen Tues-Sun noon-late The Score: Four stars
The third source is also very trivial in coverage and no part of it can be used in an article:
The Bird isn’t just one of Perth’s coolest small bars. In the 1920s what’s now the courtyard was a brothel. It later became a butcher, and the black charring from smoked meats can still be seen on the back brick wall. A spectacles store moved in more recently, then, in 2010, a group of mates gutted the place and made it one of the city’s best live-music haunts. The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs. Inside, wooden banquettes and velvet settees seat punters clutching tap beers and carefully prepared cocktails. The drink choices represent the look and feel of the place: shabby chic with chutzpah. Phone:(08) 6142 3513 Website:web.archive.org
The fourth source is also trivial in coverage and is written like an advertisement, and I'm not entirely sure this is a reliable source:
The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years. With raw exposed brick, op-shop furniture, well-worn wooden floorboards and a slew of hyper-stylish bearded men drinking tinnies of Emu Export, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were at a rough-and-ready house party — till you see the music lineup. The Bird draws some seriously impressive acts and is a great place to catch the latest local EP launch. With a small 150-cap band room, it fills up quick on Friday and Saturday nights. You'll see a few familiar faces in the crowd over the weekend — this place is frequented by many of Perth's up-and-coming musicians. In fact, one of the guys from Methyl Ethel runs sound most nights. If you're more of a participant than a listener, on the second Thursday of every month The Bird hosts the incredibly popular hip hop karaoke. This isn't your ordinary karaoke night, with punters going all-out to compete for first place. Free before 8pm and $5 after, it's the best-value live music entertainment you can get in the west.
The fifth source is a list of four "Venues Where Western Australia Loves To Party", and this is its entire, trivial coverage of the Bird:
The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows. The space is split between the main room and bar, and a low-key courtyard offering an open-air space for drinkers and conversationalists to do their thing. Peter Bibby, The Ocean Party, Terrible Truths, Methyl Ethel and The Shabbab are just a handful of acts who’ve brought in big crowds and the vibes to match.
The sixth source is part of a list of "The Best Live Music Venues WA Has To Offer" and is extremely short, trivial, and lacking in terms of significant coverage:
Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us.
The seventh source is an article published by the Western Independent, a newspaper operated by students at
Curtin University. It is thus hyper-local and fails
WP:AUD, so it alone cannot be used to indicate notability.
The eighth source is 100% routine coverage, titled "The Bird fights early closing time"; even if it wasn't routine in coverage, it doesn't actually focus on the venue itself.
It appears that this non-notable venue is being lifted up to the level of notability simply because sources exist; however, none of these sources, when examined alone, can be considered to be "significant coverage", not per any SNG guideline or per the GNG.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
01:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse The closer is not supposed to make a judgement on whether the sourcing meets the notability requirementThe closer is expected to determine whether there is consensus about whether the sourcing meets our community's notability requirement. In this case, participants were equally passionate in their position whether the sources met NCORP/GNG (and pointed to policy in their comments). A no consensus close is quite appropriate in this case. --
Enos733 (
talk)
04:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The disagreement wasn't so much on whether the sources met NCORP as on whether GNG supersedes NCORP. In that case the issue boils down to who has interpreted the policy correctly.
Avilich (
talk)
05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Enos733, I appreciate your point, which is quite right, but would you consider the points I make below please? My issue with this close is not the result so much as the way it has happened. There were procedural problems with this close.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse Is there enough coverage to make a sensible article of the topic? Clearly so, because we have one. A Keep outcome would also have been reasonable, because it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by
WP:NCORP.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Is there enough coverage by independent, non-local media? The venue is a corporation, it has to meet NCORP; it can't do that with reviews from the same city it is located.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it's actually not established that it has to meet NCORP. Your procrustean expansivism is uncompelling and would serve to eviscerate the encyclopedia, rather than simply do what is within NCORP's remit: keep spammy startups off the 'pedia.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our
literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for
organizations and companies. NCORP defines what is independent SIGCOV for organizations; if a source does not meet NCORP requirements it can't count toward NCORP or GNG. If this wasn't the case then the guidelines at NCORP would serve absolutely no purpose.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Once again, you're arguing sourcing when it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by WP:NCORP. If NCORP covers everything except that which is covered by a separate SNG, then the GNG is toast. It's clear that NCORP is being applied overly expansively, so I don't really care what it says until and unless it is established that this sort of thing is exactly what the community wanted, again, rather than just to keep spammy startups off the 'pedia. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk)
03:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Entertainment venues are not called out in NCORP. Corporate structure is not a key defining factor of what is covered in the article. NCORP doesn't get to encompass everything just because it lays claim to, nor to redefine RS for its own purposes.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Since when is a business not covered by NCORP?? It doesn't matter whether "corporate structure" is part of the article, that's not a requirement whatsoever and isn't even an aspect that's covered in most NCORP subjects like restaurants or bars, which WSB also is.
JoelleJay (
talk)
17:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You know what? You're right. There's a simpler answer: Per WP:N, corporations that meet CORP or the GNG are notable. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 1. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. We've been wasting all this time trying to box CORP back into its proper place as an SNG, when it never had permission to bypass the GNG in the first place.
Jclemens (
talk)
23:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:CORP held consensus before and independent of
WP:N, well ahead of the formulation of the
WP:GNG. WP:CORP does not derive authority from WP:N, although the language is aligned.
WP:CORP is about Wikipedia not being a venue for business promotion, and accordingly it gives more emphasis to the assessment of the sources.
I agree that much of the argument here, and at the AfD, is all wrong. The pertinent question is not whether the sources are local, but whether they are independent or non independent due to being tainted as a promotion. The sources were not well assessed for that, and so “no consensus” was the only valid close.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
00:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've been discussing notability here on Wikipedia for, um, about 16 years and don't remember things that way. N is N, and N still says GNG or SNG, so to the extent that anyone is arguing that a topic that fail NCORP and passes GNG fails N, they are wrong as N is currently written.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The original WP:CORP was premised on the need to resist advertising, although it used language that we recognise as WP:GNG-like, with independence featuring most prominently.
A top-level guideline need not predate subordinate guidelines, and age doesn't necessarily imply primacy. I don't doubt that CORP is old, but I do not recall seeing it enforced so ridiculously until recently--again, I normally deal with deletion discussions on pop culture stuff, so when I see these really bizarre arguments about CORP or sports SNGs, it's really foreign to me. It's in no way consistent with N as I understand and have used it; I literally cannot count the times I've noted the "SNG or GNG" in good faith. If you're telling me everything I believe about notability is a lie... you're going to have to find more convincing evidence.
Jclemens (
talk)
03:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is all a bit meta now. Take a step back and look. We now have an article all about a club in Perth. I am sure people enjoy going there. Will the club be there in a few years time? Will anything truly noteworthy happen there? Will anyone ever think its more than a club in Perth? Who knows (and we don't make articles in the hope it will be). There was a club like this in Croydon once. Quite a local buzz about it. I forget its name, but it doesn't matter. It is long gone, so I no longer care how much drinks cost there, or whether it is open on Wednesday nights, or who founded it. If it were notable, I am sure it would be mentioned on one of the Croydon pages, but it's not. Neither is the subject of this review mentioned on the
Perth page for that matter. If it's not notable for a mention, how is it notable for a page? It doesn't get mentioned in lists of top clubs in Perth
[1],
[2],
[3] although I guess it does get mentioned in an exhaustive list of all such clubs
[4]. If NCORP is there to keep advertising off the encyclopaedia, it has failed this time.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
06:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You and I have different definitions of what advertisement consists of. And yes, if NCORP is designed to keep advertisement that doesn't rise to G11 levels off of Wikipedia, the wording of N makes it entirely unfit for that purpose.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - I was involved and voted delete. However the question at DRV is not to relitigate the debate but to look at whether the close was correct. In this case there were serious enough concerns that I had already gone to the closer's talk page. I would have waited a little longer before opeing a DRV but the issues are these:
The case was a clear delete, both in number of !votes and the policy arguments made, but it was left open beyond the normal 1 week discussion, and it was in the extended period that 3 more keep votes were added. These added no new information or policy reasons, but were treated as simple votes, balancing the voting to allow a no consensus close. There is definitely an impression here (I am sure unintended), that the case was allowed to run on until the voting was stacked to no consensus.
Deletion is not a vote in any case. The policy arguments made were clear, and the bulk of the conversation was a meta argument from one commentator arguing why the policy should not be policy. This argument tehrefore conceded the point. The close statement was so brief that it did not justice to what was a very involved and careful look at the policy arguments.
As the case had been allowed to over-run, and with an unclear consensus, this should have at least been relisted.
A relist would be acceptable, but endorsing close is basically saying deletion policy does not matter. That is not a message we want to portray.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But again, the question is not whether we agree or disagree with the votes, but whether there is an impression that the AfD was improperly allowed to over-run until there was an exact balance of votes, and only closed at that point without any attempt to relist nor evaluate the arguments.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
09:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment from closer:
Sirfurboy, are you suggesting that I somehow waited until I got some desired !votes? In fact, I was looking at some AfDs that had not been handled after running 7 days. This one ran a decent time, with ample participation by multiple editors and there was no clear tendency towards a keep or delete that would make a relist worth while.
Cunard's summation of the debate is spot on. --
Randykitty (
talk)
12:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As I said above, I am sure it was unintended. Yet the close, not after one week nor after two, and just after the number of votes suddenly balanced, and with a very short closing summary, gives an impression that this was irregular. I would have preferred if, rather than this deletion review, it had just been re-opened, as per my comment on your talk page, as I am sure it could have been resolved amicably. Unfortunately you did not see that before this review was opened, sorry.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apology accepted. It wouldn't have changed anything anyway as I see no reason to change my close. That the AfD ran for more than 7 days does in no way mean that it must be relisted. As for an exact balance of !votes, that's new to me because
I didn't count the !votes. Even without those 3 late !votes, my close would have been "no consensus". I take offence by you characterizing my close as not evaluating the arguments. The discussion had produced huge walls of text (which I suspect may be related to the fact that no admin came around to close the discussion after the usual 7 days) and I waded through it all. My close does, I think, show that I evaluated the arguments of both sides. --
Randykitty (
talk)
14:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
While it isn't the responsibility of an AfD discussion closer to determine if the subject is notable, the closer should at least review the merits of !votes.
WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy [...] and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." <-- I am not saying that some !voters had no understanding of the matter; I am simply pointing out that there needs to be a somewhat thorough review of the !votes. Now, in regards to this particular AfD, some people (among whom I am one) assessed the sources and arrived at the conclusion that the subject wasn't notable. Others examined the sources and concluded that the subject was notable. One of the aspects of notability we discussed was SIGCOV in the context of GNG and CORPDEPTH. The closer is supposed to determine the consensus of the discussion by evaluating the merits of the policy claims. You wrote in your closing statement, "No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against", which is disappointing. So much effort was put into the discussion and the final closing statement doesn't even address how "good" any argument was.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you want a !vote-by-!vote evaluation from the closer, then I'm surely not the only one who is going to disappoint you. I don't intend to add to the wall of text that this DRV is degenerating to, similarly to the AfD. In that spirit, this will be my last comment here. --
Randykitty (
talk)
16:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree that Cunard's analysis is accurate.
The review in Sunday Times (a tabloid owned by News Corp) appears in the "home" and "real estate (Prestige Property)" sections and is written by a
Perth-based journalist focused on Perth bars. Its circulation is a full order of magnitude lower than the population of Perth itself; that decidedly fails the "local media or media of limited interest and circulation" part of AUD.
The review in Perth Now (owned by News Corp) is not independent from the other review under NewsCorp and was written by another journalist dedicated to Perth bar reviews. Local!
The review in Broadsheet is categorized in a sub-subsection of the Perth news outlet for Broadsheet, not the more national Food and Drink section. Local!
The Concrete Playground review is also in the "Perth bars" section, written by a music talent manager/PR marketer who would obviously have a financial interest in drumming up attendance at venues her clients play at! Not to mention: local.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak overturn to delete I don't think no consensus is necessarily a bad close - hence my "weak" - and I do want to commend Randykitty for wading in to close this, but having read that discussion I don't think the
WP:NCORP argument was successfully rebutted by those arguing for
WP:GNG, since NCORP applies a stricter guideline unless things have changed recently.
SportingFlyerT·C17:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse – No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer. It was, also, incidentally, the conclusion that I would have reached, but that is not important. The appellant seems to be sort of re-arguing the AFD by arguing that the closer didn't reach exactly the same conclusion as the appellant would have reached. This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. When there is no consensus among the participants in the AFD as to the status of the sources, No Consensus is a reasoned conclusion by the closer.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. That would be the case if we were assessing a non-corporate entity .
The DRV nom missed the biggest issues. Those were the fact that a) the AfD was not delsorted into the correct categories until the night before it was closed; b) keep editors largely ignored whether the topic met NCORP and instead insisted it "met GNG", which delete editors pointed out is irrelevant because the sources used failed the AUD requirements (the venue is in Perth, the coverage is in Perth, claims that the Perth newspapers are "regional" because they happen to also be distributed to the 8% of WA that doesn't live in the immediate Perth area are ridiculous; and moreover many delete !voters argued the coverage wasn't SIGCOV anyway).
JoelleJay (
talk)
18:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For the record, I think the fact that this AfD on a business wasn't in the business delsorts until the night before--hence all the !votes ignoring NCORP--is a very strong rationale for just relisting. I had gone to @
Randykitty's talk page to request exactly that, then saw the close had already been brought up for other reasons.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse (no consensus). Opposing arguments were continuing with no indication of converging. Some fresh air is needed. Follow the advice at
WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination was too brief, try better next time. An abundance of sources were considered, but it looks to me that their possible failing quality, independence, was not well considered. A review can be failed for being nonindependent as a customer review and a too-close primary source, but there is clearly no consensus that by merely being a review it should be excluded, or that local newspapers should be excluded. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I had commented on the AfD and likely would have !voted delete had I decided to submit one but the discussion could reasonably be read as no consensus. Could this also have been closed as delete, keep or relisted? Maybe. I'm not sure I would consider relisting this even had I not commented. Trying my best to be neutral, delete seems more plausible than keep to my eye, but that is not in itself sufficient to overturn the close.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Endorse I voted redirect and stand by my opinion. But there clearly was not consensus not to keep. There were solid policy-based votes on both sides. FrankAnchor18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply