Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 13

13 April 2019

 * Knock out eppm and you still have WP:THREE. I don't speak Arabic so I'm in no position to judge the Arabic sources' distinctiveness from each other (Google Translate cannot help in such matters), but take it as a given that they're all copies, and they still count as "one source", bringing the total SIGCOV count to four. Final thought: a relist doesn't have to stay open for 7 days, but if you get three !votes in 24hrs after a relist, that's a very good reason to keep it open longer. Leviv&thinsp;ich 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a misleading argument. All of the sources are conveying the same content, and unless you can establish their reliability, these do not count towards WP:SIGCOV. In addition, there's no WP:SUSTAINED. This kind of tedious arguing is why we have WP:SNOW. We had a deletion discussion, it was procedurally sound, and the consensus was delete. If the subject garners additional coverage in a few months that establishes notability, we'll all be in agreement. Until then, there is no reason to overturn this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolding "the consensus was delete" is a really unfortunate tool to be using here to draw attention to a statement that clearly everyone does not agree with. I would in fact, to take a page out of your book, say there was no consensus at the time of the close and it should have stayed relisted for further assessment. All of the people hyperanalysing a list of sources are sort of missing the point that fundamentally a relisting had took place and after that relisting nothing had happened to generate a consensus (if anything, it should have been closer to a keep after the relisting). The closing admin re-read things or changed their mind, cast their supervote and deleted the article. That single list should not have informed that later decision so heavily nor negated other comments that argued against the views of other users. This isn't sound procedurally. Half of the debate here honestly belongs on the AFD page that should still be open. KaisaL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the same content. The Manufacturer piece has a section about cross-sector applications of the technology that is not included in the Kent Online piece. The Kent Online piece quotes a government official, who is not quoted in The Manufacturer piece. The Manufacturer goes into more detail about plastic refuse and how the technology was developed than the Kent Online piece. The Kent Online piece mentions that she's a mother of three, which is not mentioned in The Manufacturer piece. Kent Online is owned by KM Group, which had ABC audited circulation and is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the largest press regulator in the UK. The Manufacturer magazine has 158,000 readers and editorial oversight . Kurdistan 24 I don't need to defend as an RS; it's a worldwide satellite and television station with foreign bureaus in the US and Germany. This is the kind of discussion we could have been having in the AfD. Leviv&thinsp;ich  20:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the link dump of sources in Arabic. The majority of those were recycled content based on translates and offered nothing new. The other two English sources may be reliable, but two minor pieces do not make someone notable. This is not WP:SUSTAINED. This is the problem; the relist proposal has essential turned into an extension of the deletion discussion, with the same participants and the same arguments (or slightly altered positions and arguments). This is a waste of time and should be closed; there was nothing improper about the disclosure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you fluent in Arabic? It would be very useful to hear from an Arabic-speaking editor about those sources–another reason the relist should have been kept open. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, nor do I need to be — a Google translate indicates that they are all substantively communicating the same information and drawing from the same sources, and none stand out as notable or authoritative. I'm also not interested in prolonging the deletion discussion, where these exact same points were made.
 * If users cannot succinctly point out an actual error committed by the closing user other than alleging WP:SUPERVOTE without evidence or a persuasive argument (other than they don't like the result), this conversation should be closed with no further action. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This Arabic source really is different from all the rest, substantially so, not PR. Very much an original piece. The others are not copies of a PR, but wire copies of a BBC article similar to how papers subscribe to Reuters. You can see it says "BBC" at the bottom of each. -- Green  C  22:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arabic sources were posted on April 12 and the discussion closed on April 13. One day is just not enough time to go through 16 Arabic-language sources and discuss them. Otherwise, things like "hey it's a BBC wire" would have come to light. A BBC wire is SIGCOV. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If it was syndicated by BBC, why aren't there more outlets picking it up? Continuing to discuss these sources is a waste of time, because we've demonstrated neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:SUSTAINED. This is why it was ideal for the discussion to be closed when it was - otherwise this filibustering, contrary to consensus, never ends. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You said it was a Press Release but never provided evidence. By all appearances you may have got it wrong, the pages have a "BBC" byline. We are here to improve Wikipedia and get it right. -- Green  C  04:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at the 4 items, the first two are actually very close-- they include exactly the same things, and are almost certainly based upon the same press release. The coverage in the Manufacturer is different, much more technical and avoiding the absurdities of the newspaper accounts that say she invented sol-gel chemistry, Eppm 's coverage is similar to that--and in factthe article says that some of it is based on her interview with the Manufacturer.    The Manufacturer's coverage is at least partly based on an interview with her, and those are not reliable sources for notability, because the person can say whatever they like.  But at least that one source is worth considering.  DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'd say there is a reasonable argument that this is a WP:BLP1E, where the award is the one event.  That's what a lot of people effectively argued and it's reasonable. weak endorse as a reasonable close.  I think NC would have been a somewhat better reading.  But this isn't wrong given the discussion and the facts on the ground.  FYI, I'd have probably !voted to keep based on the sources.  Hobit (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak endorse This situation could have been avoided had Randykitty specified the Arabic-language sources as a comment in the relisting template, and elaborated on her closure while closing as "delete". The closure was reasonable following her explanation at this DRV. The purpose of relisting a discussion is to seek more participation; it does not reset the timer, and the discussion can be closed at any time after the relisting. Whether the explanation too late is another matter. feminist (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As the person that brought it to DRV, I'd like to reiterate that I haven't in fact even commented on which way I would have hypothetically !voted in an AFD, I'm only arguing the case that the procedure was wrong, as per the purpose of the DRV process. A lot of comments here are heavily emotionally involved and are focused more on the subject's notability than whether the AFD was closed correctly. KaisaL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, could you clarify who asked you to open the DRV and what the basis of their complaint was? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Endorse- Other editors had mentioned that most of the new sources were regurgitations of the same press release. Randykitty merely confirmed that was true, and did not introduce that as a new argument. There's nothing wrong with that. Reyk YO! 08:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Void AfD close and relist. I was in the process of closing this, but after reading it all, I've decided I'd rather comment.  My practice is to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  One way I do that is to limit myself to a single administrative act in a given discussion.  If I relist something, I don't later close it.  Leave it for another admin to do.  Just like we want WP:INDEPENDENT sources, having independent administrative actions is a good thing.  And, while WP:RELIST says you don't have to wait a full seven days on a relist, it also says, may be closed once consensus is determined.  It's really hard to see how adding two "keep" and one "delete" (after FIFAukr's comment is ignored due to my blocking them) to a discussion where there was no consensus, could push that over the edge to the consensus being "delete".  And, lastly, it's not the job of the closer to evaluate the sources.  It's the job of the closer to evaluate the arguments other people have made.  I don't think any of these issues are, by themselves, sufficient to overturn the close.  Taken together, however, I think the community would have more confidence in a new close by another, uninvolved, admin.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like an eminently sensible idea, and I wish that it had happened earlier. There are good-faith comments made in this discussion by people who had looked at the sources provided and come to different conclusions from the closer. That evidence should be considered in an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is forum-shopping at its worst. The deletion discussion resulted in consensus to delete, and "keep" proponents are now using deletion review to challenge the propriety of the close by arguing minute technicalities, accuse the closer of a WP:SUPERVOTE (without basis), and relitigate the original issue without presenting any new evidence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }