MICE industry in Thailand – Endorse deletion. The consensus here seems clear that the AfD deletion of MICE industry in Thailand was done correctly, so I'm going to re-delete that. Confusing the discussion is the G4 deletion of MICE in Thailand. That's not strictly the topic of this DRV, and in any case, I don't see any consensus about that, so no consensus on the G4 of MICE in Thailand (which means I'm going to undo DGG's temporary restore of it). Lastly, there is the question of whether a new article under either of the existing names could be permitted. There's no consensus on that, so for the moment, a re-creation is allowed. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MICE industry in Thailand (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) MICE in Thailand, a recreation of the article, was speedily deleted under CSD#G4. However, the original author had posted a message contesting the deletion on the talk page. I'm assuming s/he wishes to contest the outcome of the previous deletion discussion, so I am bringing it up here at the (presumably) proper venue. A copy of the original author's message follows. Paul_012 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] This page should not be speedily deleted because... the topic has coverage in reliable media (The Wall Street Journal, Thai media etc.) it is an important economic branch (over 1 million visitors, $2,5 billion) it has specific features that already gathered the attention of the media and public (like the Indian weddings with over 1500 guests) it is not related to the previous articles reminded in the previous deletion discussion, even at that discussion it was pointed out that "this new article is better-sourced and non-promotional". My editing work should not be put in the same basket with the issues of other users' previous work. In February I spent some hours to create this page and I didn't like seeing it deleted because of that association. The path of my interest in this topic is rather like Jimmy Wales and Mzoli's, which I understand that it is all right. I did not participate in the previous deletion discussion, I edit on Wikipedia once in a few months, when I have free time --Yarikata (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Yarikata is being disingenuous. The original version of the article was similar to other, deleted, promotional articles on much the same subject, written in much the same style and apparently by paid-for editors. Yarikata tried to place promotional material in other articles as well. I tried to fix this one but gave up after reading some cogent arguments at AfD. andy (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] You are talking about something I cannot factually refute because I don't know how those previous articles looked like (and I have to say that I'm getting curious about this). Probably they should be restored too for a while to understand what is going on. You have to prove somehow if you are calling me disingenuous. I said they are not related because, as for me, I know I have no connection with them. Yarikata (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] temporariiy restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I should remind that a few days ago I recreated the page with the raw wiki text I found on a mirror website and I also added new information and media coverage. The above arguments against speedy deletion refer to this recent version, I created these arguments from the point of view of this version (the February version which was just restored does not include the recent media coverage, like The Wall Street Journal or the Indian weddings). In case the recent version does not fit in the scope of a deletion review, I should also say that it was not my idea to bring it here. I was also planning when I would have enough time to review and where applicable expand the text with other media coverage available online, like [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (just to point out there is more media coverage than in the version created a few days ago). Yarikata (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Book-case application of CSD#G4. Article deleted after an extended discussion (from 12 March to 7 April) with no keep arguments and after a previous number of recreations-after-deletions under slightly changed titles (usually accompanied by an aggressive campaign of addition of promotional material in other articles) by well-known paid editors. As pointed in the deletion discussion MICE is already covered in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau, any good-faith editor could easily add the relevant material in that article, a similar article has no other purpose than promotion, we don't need another advertisement booklet about MICE events. Furthermore the article, especially before the cleanup, included a bunch of material related to Tourism in Thailand but completely unrelated to MICE (eg. "Chiang Mai is the largest and most culturally significant city in northern Thailand, voted as the Best Destination for Culture Experience in the Lonely Planet Traveler Destination Awards 2013" or "Khon Kaen is the major commercial and educational center of Isan, Thailand’s northeastern region. It is a popular destination for tourists interested in the traditional Thai way of life, also in the local historical and archaeological sites") in attempt of giving an illusion of notability and appearing more in depth. Cavarrone 08:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] It is beyond me why the topic of this article should be included in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau. That one is an organization, this article is about an economic branch with specific information about it. This proposal sounds ridiculous, like requesting to merge Music of Thailand into Ministry of Culture (Thailand). Plus that there are other governmental organizations covering this topic, like Tourism Authority of Thailand or Trade Exhibition Association. And I did not consider that material unrelated, it explains the backdrop of MICE boom in those cities, putting it in the context. It is a normal and self-explanatory procedure that I saw in the other Wikipedia articles. I also notice that you give an endorsement, but you fail to answer any of my objections, you just repeat the same thing you wrote in the deletion discussion. Yarikata (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Lol, "ridicoulous"? It "is beyond you" to understand...? The two things are so obviously related that virtually all the sources refer to MICE in conjuction with Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau aka TCEB (including all the sources you cited above). And your justification for adding material unrelated to MICE is very poor, what "normal and self-explanatory procedure" are you referring? There is nothing normal and self-explanatory in mentioning a Lonely Planet Traveler Destination Award for Chiang Mai or a Travel + Leisure Award for Bagkok in an article about MICE, except conveying the impression that they got these awards thanks to MICE, a tendentious speculation unsupported by the cited reliable sources (they do not even mention the word MICE). Cleaned up of promotional material, puffery and unrelated material what remains of the article is at best a couple of lines that could be easily added to Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau or Tourism in Thailand, definitely not enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Cavarrone 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] The material explained the backdrop of MICE boom, not viceversa, as you insinuate. As for the other contentious point, here is in conjunction with Tourism Authority of Thailand, here with IBM and probably there are others too if I'll search more. Yarikata (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] It's trivial to endorse the AfD close because of the unanimous consensus at the AfD. What's more interesting is the question of whether Yarikata should be allowed to create a new article with this title; personally, I'm open-minded but I have yet to be convinced that it's a good idea. The content of the deleted article, after cleanup, was very brief and it doesn't really justify a separate title. Of course, Wikipedia's full of very brief stubs, but generally we only like stubs if there's some reason to think they might be expandable. Otherwise, it's best lumped in with another topic. So I'd recommend permitting this article if and only if we were presented with sources that had something new and substantial to say.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Can someone who has access to the deleted history of MICE in Thailand paste the text onto my draft page? I want to continue writing on it. Yarikata (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I've temporarily restore it also DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. Yarikata (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the AFD close and overturn the WP:CSD#G4 speedy. A prerequisite for the speedy is that the two articles are "substantially identical". So far as I can see the recreated article included [8][9][10][11][12][13] as new references. The last two, although relevant references, do not contribute much to notability. (Forgive me if I have made any mistake, the topic is utterly uninteresting to me). The recreated version was not close to being substantially identical and should only have been deleted after discussion. In addition I am dubious about the seeming "merge and delete" suggestions and the suggestion of merging to the bureau article. If anything, the merge should be the other way round. Hence any new AFD discussion has the opportunity to have real issues to deal with. Thincat (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I just noticed this DRV, as I overlooked Paul 012's link to it on my talk page. As the person who speedied MICE in Thailand, I maintain that that article was indeed a substantially identical re-creation, in that it did not address the problems noted in the deletion discussion for MICE industry in Thailand. The inclusion of a handful of new sentences and phrases, some of them mere statistics that did nothing to bolster the topic's case for notability, some of them apparently irrelevant—the wedding stuff covered in your second and third links, for instance, doesn't appear to be directly related to MICE, since the Travel Daily article refers to "incentive groups" (i.e., MICE groups) and "wedding groups" as two different things—and at least one unsourced, does not change the fact that the articles were essentially the same. Deor (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Well, I don't know anything about "Monsoon Weddings and Incentives" or even "MICE" so you may well be right. I just think it should be discussed rather than decided by two people. It is extraordinary what different meanings can be taken from the phrase "substantially identical" but that is a situation DRV regulars are very well used to. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Current draft. It seems that the article deleted a few days ago was a borderline case concerning CSD#G4. Anyway, in the meantime I further developed the text, which now does not fall into this speedy deletion criterion and I think it makes obvious the notability of the topic. I think the title of the article should be MICE in Thailand. Industry is superfluous, where possible we should keep the titles as short as permitted. We don't have Tourism industry in Thailand, plus that MICE industry in Thailand is not an established phrase. There are other phrases used, like MICE sector in Thailand. MICE industry in Thailand should be turned into a redirect. Yarikata (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Diffs provided for readers' convenience: AfD → recreation recreation → G4 G4 → draft (no change) recent draft expansion The page history is spread across MICE industry in Thailand, MICE in Thailand, and User:Yarikata/Draft, which should be history merged together. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Those diffs are very helpful. Thank you. It is deplorable that the article has been created under two different names. So far as I can see I was comparing the version (8 refs) that was AFD-deleted with this version (12 refs, mostly different from the previous 8) which was CSD-deleted. Here is the diff of the comparison. I wasn't concerned with the state of the article when it was recreated but only at the time it was G4-tagged (and deleted). If the draft has been improved I wasn't taking that into account. Thincat (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

MICE industry in Thailand – Endorse deletion. The consensus here seems clear that the AfD deletion of MICE industry in Thailand was done correctly, so I'm going to re-delete that. Confusing the discussion is the G4 deletion of MICE in Thailand. That's not strictly the topic of this DRV, and in any case, I don't see any consensus about that, so no consensus on the G4 of MICE in Thailand (which means I'm going to undo DGG's temporary restore of it). Lastly, there is the question of whether a new article under either of the existing names could be permitted. There's no consensus on that, so for the moment, a re-creation is allowed. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

MICE in Thailand, a recreation of the article, was speedily deleted under CSD#G4. However, the original author had posted a message contesting the deletion on the talk page. I'm assuming s/he wishes to contest the outcome of the previous deletion discussion, so I am bringing it up here at the (presumably) proper venue. A copy of the original author's message follows. Paul_012 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

the topic has coverage in reliable media (The Wall Street Journal, Thai media etc.)
it is an important economic branch (over 1 million visitors, $2,5 billion)
it has specific features that already gathered the attention of the media and public (like the Indian weddings with over 1500 guests)
it is not related to the previous articles reminded in the previous deletion discussion, even at that discussion it was pointed out that "this new article is better-sourced and non-promotional". My editing work should not be put in the same basket with the issues of other users' previous work. In February I spent some hours to create this page and I didn't like seeing it deleted because of that association. The path of my interest in this topic is rather like Jimmy Wales and Mzoli's, which I understand that it is all right.
I did not participate in the previous deletion discussion, I edit on Wikipedia once in a few months, when I have free time

--Yarikata (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yarikata is being disingenuous. The original version of the article was similar to other, deleted, promotional articles on much the same subject, written in much the same style and apparently by paid-for editors. Yarikata tried to place promotional material in other articles as well. I tried to fix this one but gave up after reading some cogent arguments at AfD. andy (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about something I cannot factually refute because I don't know how those previous articles looked like (and I have to say that I'm getting curious about this). Probably they should be restored too for a while to understand what is going on. You have to prove somehow if you are calling me disingenuous. I said they are not related because, as for me, I know I have no connection with them. Yarikata (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporariiy restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should remind that a few days ago I recreated the page with the raw wiki text I found on a mirror website and I also added new information and media coverage. The above arguments against speedy deletion refer to this recent version, I created these arguments from the point of view of this version (the February version which was just restored does not include the recent media coverage, like The Wall Street Journal or the Indian weddings). In case the recent version does not fit in the scope of a deletion review, I should also say that it was not my idea to bring it here. I was also planning when I would have enough time to review and where applicable expand the text with other media coverage available online, like [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (just to point out there is more media coverage than in the version created a few days ago). Yarikata (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Book-case application of CSD#G4. Article deleted after an extended discussion (from 12 March to 7 April) with no keep arguments and after a previous number of recreations-after-deletions under slightly changed titles (usually accompanied by an aggressive campaign of addition of promotional material in other articles) by well-known paid editors. As pointed in the deletion discussion MICE is already covered in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau, any good-faith editor could easily add the relevant material in that article, a similar article has no other purpose than promotion, we don't need another advertisement booklet about MICE events. Furthermore the article, especially before the cleanup, included a bunch of material related to Tourism in Thailand but completely unrelated to MICE (eg. "Chiang Mai is the largest and most culturally significant city in northern Thailand, voted as the Best Destination for Culture Experience in the Lonely Planet Traveler Destination Awards 2013" or "Khon Kaen is the major commercial and educational center of Isan, Thailand’s northeastern region. It is a popular destination for tourists interested in the traditional Thai way of life, also in the local historical and archaeological sites") in attempt of giving an illusion of notability and appearing more in depth. Cavarrone 08:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond me why the topic of this article should be included in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau. That one is an organization, this article is about an economic branch with specific information about it. This proposal sounds ridiculous, like requesting to merge Music of Thailand into Ministry of Culture (Thailand). Plus that there are other governmental organizations covering this topic, like Tourism Authority of Thailand or Trade Exhibition Association. And I did not consider that material unrelated, it explains the backdrop of MICE boom in those cities, putting it in the context. It is a normal and self-explanatory procedure that I saw in the other Wikipedia articles. I also notice that you give an endorsement, but you fail to answer any of my objections, you just repeat the same thing you wrote in the deletion discussion. Yarikata (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, "ridicoulous"? It "is beyond you" to understand...? The two things are so obviously related that virtually all the sources refer to MICE in conjuction with Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau aka TCEB (including all the sources you cited above). And your justification for adding material unrelated to MICE is very poor, what "normal and self-explanatory procedure" are you referring? There is nothing normal and self-explanatory in mentioning a Lonely Planet Traveler Destination Award for Chiang Mai or a Travel + Leisure Award for Bagkok in an article about MICE, except conveying the impression that they got these awards thanks to MICE, a tendentious speculation unsupported by the cited reliable sources (they do not even mention the word MICE). Cleaned up of promotional material, puffery and unrelated material what remains of the article is at best a couple of lines that could be easily added to Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau or Tourism in Thailand, definitely not enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Cavarrone 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material explained the backdrop of MICE boom, not viceversa, as you insinuate. As for the other contentious point, here is in conjunction with Tourism Authority of Thailand, here with IBM and probably there are others too if I'll search more. Yarikata (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial to endorse the AfD close because of the unanimous consensus at the AfD. What's more interesting is the question of whether Yarikata should be allowed to create a new article with this title; personally, I'm open-minded but I have yet to be convinced that it's a good idea. The content of the deleted article, after cleanup, was very brief and it doesn't really justify a separate title. Of course, Wikipedia's full of very brief stubs, but generally we only like stubs if there's some reason to think they might be expandable. Otherwise, it's best lumped in with another topic. So I'd recommend permitting this article if and only if we were presented with sources that had something new and substantial to say.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who has access to the deleted history of MICE in Thailand paste the text onto my draft page? I want to continue writing on it. Yarikata (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily restore it also DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yarikata (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AFD close and overturn the WP:CSD#G4 speedy. A prerequisite for the speedy is that the two articles are "substantially identical". So far as I can see the recreated article included [8][9][10][11][12][13] as new references. The last two, although relevant references, do not contribute much to notability. (Forgive me if I have made any mistake, the topic is utterly uninteresting to me). The recreated version was not close to being substantially identical and should only have been deleted after discussion. In addition I am dubious about the seeming "merge and delete" suggestions and the suggestion of merging to the bureau article. If anything, the merge should be the other way round. Hence any new AFD discussion has the opportunity to have real issues to deal with. Thincat (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this DRV, as I overlooked Paul 012's link to it on my talk page. As the person who speedied MICE in Thailand, I maintain that that article was indeed a substantially identical re-creation, in that it did not address the problems noted in the deletion discussion for MICE industry in Thailand. The inclusion of a handful of new sentences and phrases, some of them mere statistics that did nothing to bolster the topic's case for notability, some of them apparently irrelevant—the wedding stuff covered in your second and third links, for instance, doesn't appear to be directly related to MICE, since the Travel Daily article refers to "incentive groups" (i.e., MICE groups) and "wedding groups" as two different things—and at least one unsourced, does not change the fact that the articles were essentially the same. Deor (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know anything about "Monsoon Weddings and Incentives" or even "MICE" so you may well be right. I just think it should be discussed rather than decided by two people. It is extraordinary what different meanings can be taken from the phrase "substantially identical" but that is a situation DRV regulars are very well used to. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current draft. It seems that the article deleted a few days ago was a borderline case concerning CSD#G4. Anyway, in the meantime I further developed the text, which now does not fall into this speedy deletion criterion and I think it makes obvious the notability of the topic. I think the title of the article should be MICE in Thailand. Industry is superfluous, where possible we should keep the titles as short as permitted. We don't have Tourism industry in Thailand, plus that MICE industry in Thailand is not an established phrase. There are other phrases used, like MICE sector in Thailand. MICE industry in Thailand should be turned into a redirect. Yarikata (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Diffs provided for readers' convenience:
  - AfD → recreation
  - recreation → G4
  - G4 → draft (no change)
  - recent draft expansion

The page history is spread across MICE industry in Thailand, MICE in Thailand, and User:Yarikata/Draft, which should be history merged together. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are very helpful. Thank you. It is deplorable that the article has been created under two different names. So far as I can see I was comparing the version (8 refs) that was AFD-deleted with this version (12 refs, mostly different from the previous 8) which was CSD-deleted. Here is the diff of the comparison. I wasn't concerned with the state of the article when it was recreated but only at the time it was G4-tagged (and deleted). If the draft has been improved I wasn't taking that into account. Thincat (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vienna Symphonic Library – The text of the article was an unredeemable copyvio. That means that we cannot restore the deleted article. The good news is that anyone is welcome to start a new one based on new text. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] my clarification: the first two paragraphs of the article are a word-for-word copy of the first paragraph of description here . The remainder is presumably a copy of other portions of the site. The available products have changed since the article was written, and the text may no longer match anything visible there, but it reasonable to assume that it is nonetheless a c copyvio. . I don;t think we have anything to do here. It will be necessary to rewrite from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vienna Symphonic Library (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) While I don't recall the original page since it was deleted a long time ago, I remember it being a fully constructed article (not a stub). Even if it had any copyright issues on it (link to pirate download), I don't think it was a reason for a G12. I also wonder why nobody has restarted the article since it's about a company whose products have a fairly large usage in professional digital music composition. Oh, and the admin who deleted it retired Wikipedia a long ago. CyberTigerrr (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vienna Symphonic Library – The text of the article was an unredeemable copyvio. That means that we cannot restore the deleted article. The good news is that anyone is welcome to start a new one based on new text. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my clarification: the first two paragraphs of the article are a word-for-word copy of the first paragraph of description here . The remainder is presumably a copy of other portions of the site. The available products have changed since the article was written, and the text may no longer match anything visible there, but it reasonable to assume that it is nonetheless a c copyvio. .

I don;t think we have anything to do here. It will be necessary to rewrite from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

While I don't recall the original page since it was deleted a long time ago, I remember it being a fully constructed article (not a stub). Even if it had any copyright issues on it (link to pirate download), I don't think it was a reason for a G12. I also wonder why nobody has restarted the article since it's about a company whose products have a fairly large usage in professional digital music composition. Oh, and the admin who deleted it retired Wikipedia a long ago. CyberTigerrr (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.