Consortiumnews – Sent to AfD. Consensus is that this contested speedy deletion should be referred to the AfD process. – Sandstein 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Consortiumnews (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The fact that articles of this left news website have been cited or copied by many scholarly books, papers, Globalresearch.ca & Russia Insider means that it is notable hence should be kept instead of speedily deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] overturn speedy, list at AfD [1] is probably enough to overcome an A7. Not sure if the article had it there at the time. Also has Annie Machon as a contributor. Not sure it would live through an AfD, but it probably isn't an A7. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Send to AfD the article didn't include Hobit's link and didn't mention Annie Machon. It did assert that the subject's articles have been copied by Globalresearch.ca and Russia Insider but I don't think that's much of an assertion of significance (and certainly not notability). It did cite sources but virtually all of them are clearly not independent, the exceptions being two Russia Insider links. The article did assert that three people with articles are contributors: Norman Solomon, David Swanson and Martin A. Lee. I think the article as written was somewhat borderline but on the right side of the border. Hut 8.5 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Well, Consortiumnews is now considered to be a website spreading "Russian propaganda" by PropOrNot (cf. [2], it clearly says that the Washington Post have reported this website), meaning it is somewhat notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, just looking at it made me think of RT and the rest of Russia's propaganda machine. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Send to AfD. Sounds worthy of a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Send to AfD. I would have declined the CSD A7 as the article has assertions to four notable people in the first two sentences. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Meh. Tempundeleted for review. I'm usually a hard-liner about WP:CSD, but I honestly don't see how this indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant, so WP:A7 seems reasonable to me. Still, running it through AfD for a week won't do any harm. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Any editor* seeing a db-a7 tag posted can remove it, making it a7-proof meaning it must go to AfD. If there is any* a7 protest, just send to AfD. (the incompetent article author not included) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'd say that the notable people involved and the Park Foundation support are pretty solid reasons for this not to be an A7. But YMMV. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] No overturn* - The 'author' of the article (in RekishiEJ) edit warred the article in as a WP:COATRACK as some form of subsidiary article in the Robert Parry article. When I finally cleared it out of there, the editor transferred the crud tossed out of the Parry article verbatim... so being a WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:SPA whose presence on Wikipedia is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is something to be rewarded? I'd also like to remind editors and admins of WP:INHERITORG: what does four notable people in the first sentence have to do with Consortiumnews being WP:N? Sorry, but a coatrack is a coatrack is a coatrack: and there are plenty of editors who'd latch onto this in the same manner as they've tried to embrace any kind of article to counter anti-communist articles, so there is harm in tossing it out there. While I may sympathise with an imbalance in literature and mainstream studies, referencing Globalresearch.ca and Russia Insider as anything other than biased sources is a good litmus test for how far you need to reach to scrape the bottom of the barrel for WP:RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I think we'll end up with a deleted article. But given the award and the notable people involved, it's probably best to do so at AfD rather than as a speedy. Also, the Park Foundation support is yet another reason why, IMO, this wasn't a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ultimately, if it remains, it'll hardly be unique in a long list of highly dubious Wikipedia newsorg articles. I guess they're just a pet peeve because there's so little in the way of RS regarding the integrity of the org, the reader is not presented anything of substance other than the fact that it exists, and some people think it's terrific while others don't. Call me an exclusionist, but some things really ought to be relegated to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS pile. Ooh, goodness, how exciting! I might start shaking my fist at the monitor soon! Nah. I know that the cosmic order isn't contingent on trivia, but there's still occasionally stuff that gets up my nose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Consortiumnews – Sent to AfD. Consensus is that this contested speedy deletion should be referred to the AfD process. – Sandstein 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that articles of this left news website have been cited or copied by many scholarly books, papers, Globalresearch.ca & Russia Insider means that it is notable hence should be kept instead of speedily deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

overturn speedy, list at AfD [1] is probably enough to overcome an A7. Not sure if the article had it there at the time. Also has Annie Machon as a contributor. Not sure it would live through an AfD, but it probably isn't an A7. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD the article didn't include Hobit's link and didn't mention Annie Machon. It did assert that the subject's articles have been copied by Globalresearch.ca and Russia Insider but I don't think that's much of an assertion of significance (and certainly not notability). It did cite sources but virtually all of them are clearly not independent, the exceptions being two Russia Insider links. The article did assert that three people with articles are contributors: Norman Solomon, David Swanson and Martin A. Lee. I think the article as written was somewhat borderline but on the right side of the border. Hut 8.5 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Consortiumnews is now considered to be a website spreading "Russian propaganda" by PropOrNot (cf. [2], it clearly says that the Washington Post have reported this website), meaning it is somewhat notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, just looking at it made me think of RT and the rest of Russia's propaganda machine. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. Sounds worthy of a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. I would have declined the CSD A7 as the article has assertions to four notable people in the first two sentences. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Tempundeleted for review. I'm usually a hard-liner about WP:CSD, but I honestly don't see how this indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant, so WP:A7 seems reasonable to me. Still, running it through AfD for a week won't do any harm. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Any editor* seeing a db-a7 tag posted can remove it, making it a7-proof meaning it must go to AfD. If there is any* a7 protest, just send to AfD. (*the incompetent article author not included) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that the notable people involved and the Park Foundation support are pretty solid reasons for this not to be an A7. But YMMV. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No overturn - The 'author' of the article (in RekishiEJ) edit warred the article in as a WP:COATRACK as some form of subsidiary article in the Robert Parry article. When I finally cleared it out of there, the editor transferred the crud tossed out of the Parry article verbatim... so being a WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:SPA whose presence on Wikipedia is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is something to be rewarded? I'd also like to remind editors and admins of WP:INHERITORG: what does four notable people in the first sentence have to do with Consortiumnews being WP:N? Sorry, but a coatrack is a coatrack is a coatrack: and there are plenty of editors who'd latch onto this in the same manner as they've tried to embrace any kind of article to counter anti-communist articles, so there is harm in tossing it out there. While I may sympathise with an imbalance in literature and mainstream studies, referencing Globalresearch.ca and Russia Insider as anything other than biased sources is a good litmus test for how far you need to reach to scrape the bottom of the barrel for WP:RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we'll end up with a deleted article. But given the award and the notable people involved, it's probably best to do so at AfD rather than as a speedy. Also, the Park Foundation support is yet another reason why, IMO, this wasn't a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, if it remains, it'll hardly be unique in a long list of highly dubious Wikipedia newsorg articles. I guess they're just a pet peeve because there's so little in the way of RS regarding the integrity of the org, the reader is not presented anything of substance other than the fact that it exists, and some people think it's terrific while others don't. Call me an exclusionist, but some things really ought to be relegated to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS pile. Ooh, goodness, how exciting! I might start shaking my fist at the monitor soon! Nah. I know that the cosmic order isn't contingent on trivia, but there's still occasionally stuff that gets up my nose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eatsa – "Keep" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 14:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eatsa (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This was boldly closed with the sole "Keep" without actually acknowledging the fact there was 1 comment with actual cited policy (which is the basis of any challenging AfD, let alone advertising articles), while the others simply cited "it needs improvements, but it's WP:GNG" or "this isn't advertising", none of that takes away the meaning of actual hard policy such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, thus an unacceptable NAC close. It needed to either be reopened or relisted. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Had I participated in this AfD, I suspect I would have !voted IAR Delete, because I agree with Swister that this company is probably not notable. But, our policies talk about sources, and looking at the five good sources in the article, it's hard to argue that this doesn't meet WP:GNG. The NYT article is clearly a solid source. I'm usually kind of negative about TechCrunch, Investor's Business Daily, and CNET, but in combination with the NYT piece, they're more than enough. So, from the point of view of addressing the close itself, you've got the strength of numbers (5-2) arguing to keep, with good sources, and at least some of the keep !votes making cogent arguments which cite appropriate policies. I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] PS, I suspect if the WP:NAC aspect didn't exist, we wouldn't even be here. I would be within my rights to reclose this (as keep) myself, eliminating the NAC-factor, but I'm not going to do that because I think it would send the wrong message. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Closer comment/Endorse - SwisterTwister it would've been nice if you bothered to notify me!, Anyway as I stated on my talkpage a few editors believed it met CORDEPTH as well as GNG and those arguements were stronger IMHO so like Roy I fail to see how this could've been closed any other way - Sure I could've reliste it but I don't believe that would've achieved any other outcome, RoySmith - If you want to reclose I honestly have no objections. –Davey2010^Talk 03:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] No, I don't want to reclose it. Reclosing it would make the WP:POINT that the close was no good. So, maybe by refusing to reclose it, I'm making a WP:ANTIPOINT? Suggest we all return to writing an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] True i suppose ... I was just being helpful that's all, Exactly no need for the unnecessary dramah. –Davey2010^Talk 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse if someone is closing discussions like this as delete, there is a problem. Sources exist, those !voting to keep cite the sources, keeps have the majority. And they have WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the major argument for deleting this was lack of notability, which has been shown to be false. The other Delete argument was that the article is advertising, but the policy basis for deleting neutrally worded content on the grounds of advertising is slim to nonexistent and this opinion is outweighed by the others. Hut 8.5 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] At least as it stands at the moment, I don't see how it could be considered promotional. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Correctly closed. Decisions are made by those who turn up. I would have !voted to delete. CORPDEPTH ha?!? Are we talking about the same article? See Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] That link is a trivial and snide-humored guideline, not a policy. No one here has cared to back acknowledge that not only is WP:NOT relevant and necessary to Wikipedia itself, but it's something that we use everyday. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] OK, so my understanding is that you are claiming WP:NOT applies. Could you cite the part of NOT that you feel applies here? Reading the discussion and your comments, I really can't tell. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Swister is not good with words. It does not violate WP:NOT, unless taken to be pure advertising, which it is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] 'Endorse The result is probably correct: the NYT article is enough to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Disagree there, as the NYT article is about Automated restaurants generally, with Eastsa featuring as a mere example. Accordingly, I would !vote merge and redirect to Automated restaurant, not "delete", on further consideration. And so I observe that the AfD nominator failed WP:BEFORE, a failure that typically results in "keep" or "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thw NYT article is primarily about Eatsa. That's the only company discussed. The article includes discusses general concerns, and background, as expected on a substantial article in a major paper, but it is almost entirely about this particular company. Anyone who doubts, should just read it. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] The article. No, it is primarily about the concept of the automated restaurant. Eatsa serves as the single example. There is zero implication that Eatsa is in any way a special, in fact the implication is the opposite. It is the first outlet of the company Eatsa, but it is not the first automated restaurant, or the first quinoa automated restaurant, or at least the article doesn't say that. The Eatsa-specifics serve to highlight the banality; not a restaurant but "more like a food delivery system". I think it obviously begs for comparison with other automated restaurants, more breadth of coverage that what would be more narrow than coverage of a single McDonalds outlet. The NYT article would contribute to evidence of notability, the reporter chose this outlet over others, but no way does it alone meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I share Swister's exasperation, but the answer is not deletion, but expansion of the real topic, which is Automated restaurant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - This DRV is useless drama. The AFD was clearly closed correctly. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] No, it is a typical "correct process, bad result" case. It is a flag providing evidence for a need for process refinement. Ignoring it because there is no simple answer ignores an important purpose of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eatsa – "Keep" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 14:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was boldly closed with the sole "Keep" without actually acknowledging the fact there was 1 comment with actual cited policy (which is the basis of any challenging AfD, let alone advertising articles), while the others simply cited "it needs improvements, but it's WP:GNG" or "this isn't advertising", none of that takes away the meaning of actual hard policy such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, thus an unacceptable NAC close. It needed to either be reopened or relisted. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Had I participated in this AfD, I suspect I would have !voted IAR Delete, because I agree with Swister that this company is probably not notable. But, our policies talk about sources, and looking at the five good sources in the article, it's hard to argue that this doesn't meet WP:GNG. The NYT article is clearly a solid source. I'm usually kind of negative about TechCrunch, Investor's Business Daily, and CNET, but in combination with the NYT piece, they're more than enough. So, from the point of view of addressing the close itself, you've got the strength of numbers (5-2) arguing to keep, with good sources, and at least some of the keep !votes making cogent arguments which cite appropriate policies. I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, I suspect if the WP:NAC aspect didn't exist, we wouldn't even be here. I would be within my rights to reclose this (as keep) myself, eliminating the NAC-factor, but I'm not going to do that because I think it would send the wrong message. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment/Endorse - SwisterTwister it would've been nice if you bothered to notify me!, Anyway as I stated on my talkpage a few editors believed it met CORDEPTH as well as GNG and those arguements were stronger IMHO so like Roy I fail to see how this could've been closed any other way - Sure I could've reliste it but I don't believe that would've achieved any other outcome, RoySmith - If you want to reclose I honestly have no objections. –Davey2010^Talk 03:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to reclose it. Reclosing it would make the WP:POINT that the close was no good. So, maybe by refusing to reclose it, I'm making a WP:ANTIPOINT? Suggest we all return to writing an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True i suppose ... I was just being helpful that's all, Exactly no need for the unnecessary dramah. –Davey2010^Talk 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse if someone is closing discussions like this as delete, there is a problem. Sources exist, those !voting to keep cite the sources, keeps have the majority. And they have WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the major argument for deleting this was lack of notability, which has been shown to be false. The other Delete argument was that the article is advertising, but the policy basis for deleting neutrally worded content on the grounds of advertising is slim to nonexistent and this opinion is outweighed by the others. Hut 8.5 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At least as it stands at the moment, I don't see how it could be considered promotional. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correctly closed. Decisions are made by those who turn up. I would have !voted to delete. CORPDEPTH ha?!? Are we talking about the same article? See Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That link is a trivial and snide-humored guideline, not a policy. No one here has cared to back acknowledge that not only is WP:NOT relevant and necessary to Wikipedia itself, but it's something that we use everyday. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so my understanding is that you are claiming WP:NOT applies. Could you cite the part of NOT that you feel applies here? Reading the discussion and your comments, I really can't tell. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swister is not good with words. It does not violate WP:NOT, unless taken to be pure advertising, which it is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Endorse The result is probably correct: the NYT article is enough to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree there, as the NYT article is about Automated restaurants generally, with Eastsa featuring as a mere example. Accordingly, I would !vote merge and redirect to Automated restaurant, not "delete", on further consideration. And so I observe that the AfD nominator failed WP:BEFORE, a failure that typically results in "keep" or "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thw NYT article is primarily about Eatsa. That's the only company discussed. The article includes discusses general concerns, and background, as expected on a substantial article in a major paper, but it is almost entirely about this particular company. Anyone who doubts, should just read it. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article. No, it is primarily about the concept of the automated restaurant. Eatsa serves as the single example. There is zero implication that Eatsa is in any way a special, in fact the implication is the opposite. It is the first outlet of the company Eatsa, but it is not the first automated restaurant, or the first quinoa automated restaurant, or at least the article doesn't say that. The Eatsa-specifics serve to highlight the banality; not a restaurant but "more like a food delivery system". I think it obviously begs for comparison with other automated restaurants, more breadth of coverage that what would be more narrow than coverage of a single McDonalds outlet. The NYT article would contribute to evidence of notability, the reporter chose this outlet over others, but no way does it alone meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I share Swister's exasperation, but the answer is not deletion, but expansion of the real topic, which is Automated restaurant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - This DRV is useless drama. The AFD was clearly closed correctly. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is a typical "correct process, bad result" case. It is a flag providing evidence for a need for process refinement. Ignoring it because there is no simple answer ignores an important purpose of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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