This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I haven't regularly watched DRV in some time, and I'm wondering if there have been any recent DRVs that dealt with the issues of: (1) whether an interview meets the independence requirement of GNG, (2) whether there's a minimum length for the in-depth requirement of GNG, and (3) whether !votes should be discounted by a closer on these two grounds.

FYI, the most recent discussion of #1 at WT:N I found is Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 74#Editorial interviews as "primary sources" from January 2022, and there's the essay WP:Interviews. The most recent discussion of #2 I found there is Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 72#New explanatory supplement on "significant coverage" from June 2021, and there are several essays, including WP:100W, WP:MINCOV, and WP:WISC.

I'm looking for recent examples of any of these issues actually being applied to an AFD (and also if there any other discussions I should read). Thanks, Levivich 18:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Good thin you like to read. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Not as much as they like to write. Levivich 18:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you have to take each example on its merits. Paid advertorials in some media (Asian newspaper websites are particularly bad for this) are often framed as interviews. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Paid advertorials, and native advertising are killer delete !votes at AfD, if you can persuade others that the key sources are advertorials or native advertising.

There is a slowly developing code of conduct for newspaper publishers to overtly declare independence of the article, if independent. I recommend external advocacy of this, by writing to the newspaper and journalist and asking, simply, if the article is independent of the subject.

Many reputable publishers may include a statement of non-independence, such as that the magazine may receive a commission on purchases made using the link they provide. I consider this to complete elimination of the source as GNG-meeting, on the basis of independence, but not everyone agrees. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

High Black Kite Hi Levivich. There have been few in the last couple of years, and I have taken an intense interest. I have had some extensive conservation with User:WhatamIdoing.

The few DRVs have tended to uphold harsh WP:SIRS source analysis at AfD, but ultimately DRV reflects the strength of arguments and the calling of the close having reflected the discussion, and it does set a citeable precedent on whether interviews can be GNG-meeting sources.

My take: (1) A source that includes an interview can meet the GNG, however, the quotes from the interviewee do not count towards whether the coverage is significant. The interviewer must give preamble or summary, and the question goes to the significance of the preamble and/or summary. In controversy is whether editorially prosified interviewee quotes count.

(2). Un utter minimum is either 100 words WP:100W, or two running sentences containing secondary source comment and contextualisation. 500 words, total, might be more middle of the range of what’s considered acceptable. DRV has had very little comment on whether key sources were of significant depth.

(3). No, the closer does not get to make these calls, but the closer does get to find these calls made in the discussion to be stronger. Personally I observe WP:SIRS style detailed and analytical delete !votes to have been considered stronger because an analytical WP:SIRS style analysis of each source looks a lot more impressive and hand waving at sources. Analytical analysis looks objective.

Of the few DRV cases that I remember, the DRV typically has sources proffered that weren’t in the article or in the AfD, and in cases like these the outcome is usually to REFUND to draft and AfC, with no prohibition of unilateral re-mainspacing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Once again I'm going to bemoan the fact that we don't have a searchable archive of RfCs, because there could well have been some that touch on what you're asking. We do have the WP:CR archives which may contain something useful?— S Marshall  T/ C 11:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for your answers! Levivich 04:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)