Comment We generally never relist an AFD discussion more than 3 times and, in fact, there are editors who argue that a deletion discussions shouldn't be relisted more than twice. I can't imagine any of our closers relisting this discussion a 4th time unless it was a mistake. I see that you wanted this article deleted but you didn't put forward a very strong or persuasive argument for deletion. LizRead!Talk!05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Liz above. Clear case of "No Consensus". I am not convinced that the second and third relists were necessary or helpful. It is very rare fir decisive comments to come in after the first few weeks. It's usually better to just renominate in 6 months. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. The appellant presents no valid argument for relisting. In fact, if, as they say, No clear consensus reached after three relistings, then a No consensus close was the only correct option. Owen×☎08:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Liz's close wasn't improper, and it should not have been relisted, but a detailed reading of a poor discussion shows WP:NCORP was not met. (I understand a possible remedy is to endorse the close and quickly re-nominate.) SportingFlyerT·C11:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I very much did/do still think HighKing's argument was flawed, but I didn't respond twice because I knew that it was unlikely a "delete" close would occur. If you feel this strongly about the article, just renominate in two months. Mach6113:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, discussion had tapered off and there was no indication a fourth relist (about which I agree with Liz), would bring about a consensus. You can re-nominate it and make a stronger case for why it should be deleted, which may engender more input. StarMississippi20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep Mach61's source table showed two independent reliable sources, which meets GNG, which means it's 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); and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I keep saying this, as this error seems to crop up every few months, but the NCORP-trumps-GNG crowd have not yet changed the guideline to their preferred narrative, so existing policy clearly still applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a crazy interpretation. NCORP isn't actually stricter than the GNG, but it applies stricter standards to the sources used to source articles about companies. Neither of those sources come close to meeting NCORP. One of them - the Forbes one - doesn't even meet GNG. But I guess this is an argument for another deletion discussion... SportingFlyerT·C09:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that "isn't actually stricter" and "applies stricter standards to the sources" are contradictory, right? I don't think that sort of a disconnect is a good basis for calling my interpretation crazy. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only contradictory if you want it to be. It "isn't actually stricter" applies to the fact that NCORP doesn't add any *additional* requirements - the requirements are the same, but refined for companies/organizations. It applies "stricter standards" means that because of a company's ability to generate PR and issue announcements that are then regurgitated by press, etc, we need to carefully scrutinise the content. HighKing++ 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So PR and issue announcements are allowed by the GNG, but not NCORP? News to me. Why don't we just require independent RS's in the GNG? Oh wait... we have for the ~18 years I've been around, so I have no idea how what you just said reflects our policies. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a proper interpretation of the relationship between GNG and NCORP. Jclemens has trotted this argument out previously and it has been rebutted each time. NCORP is simply the guideline under which GNG is implemented for companies and organizations, you can't say something "meets GNG" and "fails NCORP" because they're the same thing. HighKing++ 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, go change the portion of policy I quoted to make it abundantly clear that you're correct and I'm wrong, and let's see if that change sticks. Until then, I will continue pointing out that your argument is wrong. Also, please note that not only is SportingFlyer's argument inconsistent with itself, it's also inconsistent with yours. So yeah, not too worried that the two of you are opposing the plain text of the notability guideline with orthogonal rationales. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong and the policies don't need changing. I'm not going to bother pointing you to the numerous discussions where this has already been decided, you've been around a long time, you can figure it out yourself I'm sure. If you think you're right, go open (yet another) discussion on this same topic and I'm sure we'll get to the exact same answers and reach the same conclusion. Ping me if you do. HighKing++ 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a thing, especially among people who have a very negative view of corporations and would like to weaponize notability guidelines to treat them unequally. I'm sure there have been plenty of discussions attended by people who view the problem as you do. I'm sure that those discussions have not changed N or the GNG as I note that it must logically be in order for an SNG to limit how the GNG is applied. I know your perspective, I don't agree with it, and I can do this all day. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a comment about relistings, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes no new editors show up after a discussion has been relisted but I also know a) there are some editors who only comment on relisted discussions (and I am grateful for them) and b) it doesn't happen a lot, but I have seen a discussion relisted three times and suddenly 3 or 4 editors show up to offer their assessents on the article and its sources and a consensus is reached. So, sometimes relistings are necessary to come to a valid consensus. LizRead!Talk!03:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The overall level of discussion was poor and while Liz could have decided it as a Delete based on weighing arguments/guidelines, equally there's an argument for "no consensus" for the same reasons. Don't see much of an argument to Keep though but contributors at AfD would be better served to comment on sources rather than making generic comments. HighKing++ 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. … Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) indicates that nothing Mach61 write can be trusted. That statement is overconfident and utter rubbish. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two sources in the WP:SIRS table, the first is painfully obviously nonindependent.
The nominator should be WP:SLAPped for the extremely poor nomination. It being a proxy nomination is no excuse. Such weak nominations lead to trainwreck AfDs. Nominations should be strong and compelling, not “bit spotty”, and “the company itself isn't that notable aswell”.
Endorse - There is clearly not consensus to delete the article despite the AFD being listed for a month. Constructive arguments were made on both sides of the discussion and relisting for a fourth time (a process that is almost never done) would likely not sway consensus either way. I recommend the DRV nominator (or another interested party) follow the steps at WP:RENOM if they wish to re-nominate this article at least two months after the DRV closure. FrankAnchor13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I will observe that there is one !vote to Overturn to Keep and one !vote to Overturn to Delete. That means that those who disagree with the close also disagree as to how it should have been closed differently. I will also comment that No Consensus is not a conclusion that anyone likes, and so some editors always have some ideas on how a consensus should have been worked out, but sometimes it is just realistic to recognize that there is no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. HighKing was and is correct about NCORP not being met but it was reasonable to close as no consensus regardless. NCORP has a protective role and is important for maintaining Wikipedia's reputability. Sometimes, when its criteria aren't met and an article is kept is spite of that, it will be the case that the community failed to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The other times when its criteria aren't met and an article is kept, it will be the case only that an article on a non-notable topic has remained a part of the encyclopedia, which isn't unusual or terrible. With regard to this article, it's the latter more innocent scenario, and enforcing removal of this NCORP-failing content isn't crucial. This is because this is a highly visible company which had placed a Super Bowl ad, advertises and markets its products rather aggressively, gets written about in various outlets even if not in a way that suits our purposes, and a Wikipedia article does not meaningfully increase its visibility, and some neutral content can be written about it. But if the content was bad and the company had low visibility I would have voted to overturn in this DRV, because it would have been a concerning failure of the process.—Alalch E.09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
