Talk:Elephants Delicatessen/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Elephants Delicatessen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Status
@Graywalls: This page has been restored as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please get on with adding the references that you say will demonstrate notability - otherwise the draft could easily be deleted. Deb (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb: I've shared some sources below, based on a quick Google search. I am not suggesting any one of these single-handedly demonstrates notability, but certainly there are many sources to help flesh out the article. There's no reason to delete the draft. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- That depends whether you manage to word it such that it doesn't sound like an advert. Some of these sources can help you with that; others obviously won't. Deb (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, I've written nearly 100 good articles. I think I can manage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb:
the draft could easily be deleted
? Under what policy or guideline? Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting a draft provides very narrow criteria under which draft articles can be deleted, and this one does not meet any of them. It certainly does not meet, and did not meet at the time of its previous deletion, WP:G11, which states clearly thatAny article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.
This article describes its subject from a neutral, sourced point of view. The initial speedy deletion request should have been declined by an administrator. The subject may not be notable enough to have survived AFD, but notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- G11 is. And that was why the article was nominated for speedy deletion. And, as an administrator, I don't agree that the speedy request "should have been declined by an administrator". Deb (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Change is constant here at WP, and the only rational explanation I can come up with for the above response is that G11 has changed since the last time Deb read it. That is why I quoted it above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why not just submit it for review as is and get some comments from third parties that you find more acceptable? Deb (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Change is constant here at WP, and the only rational explanation I can come up with for the above response is that G11 has changed since the last time Deb read it. That is why I quoted it above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- G11 is. And that was why the article was nominated for speedy deletion. And, as an administrator, I don't agree that the speedy request "should have been declined by an administrator". Deb (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb:
- Deb, I've written nearly 100 good articles. I think I can manage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- That depends whether you manage to word it such that it doesn't sound like an advert. Some of these sources can help you with that; others obviously won't. Deb (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb: I've shared some sources below, based on a quick Google search. I am not suggesting any one of these single-handedly demonstrates notability, but certainly there are many sources to help flesh out the article. There's no reason to delete the draft. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not think this meets G11 whatsoever, it is only a couple of sentences. I could write a version of this article that does meet G11, or an article of a local bar or kebab shop that does, but that would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point so I won't. And the whole point of drafts is that there is no rush to add sources, so threatening to delete an editors' work on those grounds isn't very nice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Agree to disagree. I reviewed the totality of the circumstance before nominating it for unambiguous spam. Factors, such as single purpose account created by the business in business' name which has been banned for injecting promotional contents and involvement by an experienced editor who has a track record of prolifically creating articles on run of the mill local businesses that absolutely fails to establish the core requirements of notability with information provided reasonably concludes it is advertisement listing. I dispute the allegation of misapplication of G11 because of these circumstantial evidence that was not discussed here. An experienced editor like him should know better than slapping a bunch of sticky note drafts and expecting other editors to establish organization notability, and if disputed, put other editors go through all the AfD hoop. I personally liken this to patent troll lawsuits which are known to create the burden. Deb's suggestion that he submit them for review first is rational. With the level of experience held by Another Believer, he knows better that its disruptive to introduce a sub stub quality junk articles Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Can we please stay focused on Elephants Deli here, and not my behavior in general? I've asked below, but you've not responded, what do you think about the sources shared below? Do you believe these help demonstrate notability? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Agree to disagree. I reviewed the totality of the circumstance before nominating it for unambiguous spam. Factors, such as single purpose account created by the business in business' name which has been banned for injecting promotional contents and involvement by an experienced editor who has a track record of prolifically creating articles on run of the mill local businesses that absolutely fails to establish the core requirements of notability with information provided reasonably concludes it is advertisement listing. I dispute the allegation of misapplication of G11 because of these circumstantial evidence that was not discussed here. An experienced editor like him should know better than slapping a bunch of sticky note drafts and expecting other editors to establish organization notability, and if disputed, put other editors go through all the AfD hoop. I personally liken this to patent troll lawsuits which are known to create the burden. Deb's suggestion that he submit them for review first is rational. With the level of experience held by Another Believer, he knows better that its disruptive to introduce a sub stub quality junk articles Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)