- BoAt Lifestyle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
qz.com was a notable source as per the AFD Discussion and another one is the Harvard Case study, which we missed before. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/523019-PDF-ENG. Hence it is making it notable. Sorry, While scrolling through Twitter, I got this today and I am not well-versed in research. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Lordofhunter (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse delete closure The original discussion seems to have found that qz
lacks WP:ORGIND because it includes quotes from boAt co-founders Gupta and Mehta , which you disagreed with but at least two others in the discussion agreed with. While the Harvard source may show notability, I think the best thing for you to do at this point would be to write a new draft that cites the source, and see how it's taken by AfC reviewers - but one source does not make notability, the standard is multiple. Additionally, it is a good idea to keep in mind how WP:NCORP demands a more rigorous standard be applied to the inclusion of articles on companies and corporations. casualdejekyll 12:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I am new. If Harvard source qualifies then do we need 1 more source or 2 more? Also, on qz.com independent research is there. If a journalist picks a quote of the ceo. Is that mean that that source is not independent? I don't want to create or put afc efforts, I just saw the source so I shared. If an expert will search, he might get more case study. Lordofhunter (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That really depends on the source. Deletion review is less about analyzing the sources and is more about analyzing the consensus of the discussion: it seems quite clear to me that the discussion had a consensus to delete, so instead of a deletion review the way to go forward (assuming the sources exist) is with a draft, such as improving Draft:BoAt Lifestyle. casualdejekyll 14:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. Yes, deletion, at that point was correct. I totally agree. But could you help me with qz.com source? Is is good or not? Because one user was only thinking it is good while other was not. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO it is your best bet if you find a third strong source (if there is one, which might be unlikely as numerous participants failed to find another), as two sources are borderline. But please also be careful of writing in a neutral tone (WP:NPOV), follow WP:V, and avoiding WP:REFBOMBING questionable or trivial sources, like the many sources analysed in the AfD discussion (those all might be reasons for an AfC draft be declined). However, otherwise, with the two sources notability is (very generously) borderline, it depends on if the article for creation reviewers accepts it or not. WP:NCORP has a higher standard compared to WP:GNG, additionally some reviewers require two solid sources whereas others require three (the latter apparently being not being satisfied for this topic). The reviewer will also factor in the AfD result, which had a few participants voting delete and questioning the existing sources, including the qz.com one (which makes your DRV rationale a bit unconvincing IMO). So even if you write a neutral, verifiable, non refbombed article, it might be accepted, or might be declined
- I don't work in Article for Creation but I do WP:NPP work. Personally (as someone who voted delete, so keep in mind of my WP:INVOLVED status), if this is another similar article, I might not be comfortable in marking as reviewed an article with just two sources counting towards WP:NCORP, one of them questioned in a recent AfD or by an AfC reviewer while declining a draft. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lordofhunter- to clarify are you still requesting the AfD outcome to be overturned to NC/keep... or are you fine with working on the existing draft and submitting it through AfC? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I count 6 Delete !votes including the nom and 4 Keep !votes. Any of No Consensus, Relist, or Delete would be reasonable conclusions of rough consensus by the closer, except that one of the Deletes was accompanied by a source analysis. That makes Delete the strongest policy-based conclusion from the input of the editors. The appellant may edit and improve the draft, and should be aware that an AFC reviewer will take the AFD into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Recreation of Draft, Endorse as involved editor. While numerically the consensus is 6-4, the delete votes are IMO significantly stronger than the keep isde (note: I voted delete), as the first three keep votes vaguely asserted notability being met without getting into any details on the sources, therefore these should be given less weight. In contrast, one of the delete voters gave a detailed source analysis, with other delete voters also giving reasonable policy-based rationales. As such, while no consensus and delete are both valid closes IMO this leans to delete somewhat compared to NC. Moreover, even if a draft is recreated notability is borderline at best. The requirement of multiple sources makes two sources borderline, and that is not even factoring that thw QZ source is debatably WP:CORPDEPTH, with participants disagreeing on whether it is non-trivial. Nevertheless, IMHO the new Harvard ref appears to meet SIGCOV, so allowing a recreation seems reasonable, even though the draft might not be accepted. However, the close is ceetainly reasonable IMO so I endorse the outocme. VickKiang (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, The decision at that point was fine. And I assumed that Harvard and qz.com are good to go now, but if you think qz.com is debatable then I guess, it is 1.5 source. I will update if I can get one more source, or if someone can help in it. No need to change the decision of that delete vote. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. After the source analysis was posted by Beccaynr, consensus moved to delete, with five delete votes (including the vote posted by Beccaynr and a keep vote that was changed to delete specifically referencing the source analysis) to only one keep vote that only cites WP:ROUTINE coverage and does not establish significance. No issue with recreating in draft space if the appellant wishes to improve the article and eventually submit it to AFC. Frank Anchor 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
