Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 19

Century Financial Consultancy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The company was voted as the best place to work in the UAE and best workplace in the UAE for women. Plenty of credible sources for century financial. it was speedily deleted though the content was new. Francisjk2020 (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]

• @Francisjk2020: please advise the administrator who most recently deleted the article, Kuru, as outlined in Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted as advertising, so it does not matter if it is new or not. We just have to confirm whether it is too promotional to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say it is not to promotional to be here, even if the purpose of the page is promotional. There is a claim of importance, but I would vote delete in an AFD for failing WP:NCORP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure it's that promotional, but it does seem to have a fair number of references to puff pieces/pr. At least one "news" story states "This content comes from KT Engage, the brand marketing unit of Khaleej Times". I can't imagine it would survive an xFD in the current state, would probably be best to get this into draft and work on it to remove such before returning to mainspace. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a mess, and partially my fault. The article was previously deleted at AFD last month as "Century Financial". Article was a hodgepodge of promotional claims and paid/PR sources and trivial "recognition". The article was recreated by Francisjk2020 at Century Financial Consultancy and quickly moved to draft by BoraVoro (see Draft:Century Financial Consultancy). I removed some of the more obvious, and at least marked, paid advertorials. The article was then recreated again in mainspace by the same editor. After removing the same promotional material, I noted the prior AFD and and many other PR sources and intended to delete with A11/A5G4. I mistakenly left off the A5G4 from the delete comment (substantially the same, only with less supporting material). The draft is still there to work on, with a comment from me related to the failed validation on the sources. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume you mean G4 rather than A5? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a mess. I'm not entirely sure the speedy deletion post-AfD was completely properly done, mostly because it's not clear exactly if this meets G4 or G11. Ignoring that, the problems identified at the November AfD have not been remedied and this should not be in mainspace at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD result was unanimous, and the four views presented were firmly based on policy. The closer did the only possible thing. If new sources turned up since the close, this should be taken to WP:REFUND, but it doesn't sound like there's any basis for that either. Until things change, G4 or SALT as needed. Owen× ☎ 01:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly this article is different from the content in the previous one and the company was recent voted as the best workplace to work in UAE and the best workplace for women. Also, credible sources is not in question as there are plenty of sources available on a daily basis. Like another administrator mentioned this article cannot be categorized as promotional either. I tried WP Refund. Honestly I am not too sure on what basis the article was speedily deleted.(Francisjk2020 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Please provide the three best sources that demonstrate the notability of this organisation. Stating they are "available on a daily basis" is insufficient. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion of Century Financial Consultancy either as G11 or G4. Do not refund the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of Century Financial as Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial as delete. No other closure would have been rational or possible. Overturn the G11 deletion of Century Financial Consultancy as the article was relatively neutral, but re-delete it per CSD:G4 as recreation of a deleted article. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As requested here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/century-financial-vision-passion-and-a-commitment-to-excellence-1.1698302255172

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/shaping-a-greener-future-collaborative-strategies-for-the-financial-sector

https://gulfnews.com/amp/uae/environment/women-leaders-tackle-ways-to-strike-a-balance-between-growth-sustainability-1.98552371

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 (Francisjk2020 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Question Can someone look at the two articles and assess whether they were substantially identical? I'm thinking if one is G11-able and the re-creation is not, then the re-created article is probably not G4-able. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jclemens, I've tempundel'd the second article now also. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Daniel. With that, repudiate G4 for the new article, regardless of what else happens to it. I don't have any strong opinion on G11, but it's clearly not substantially the same article. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir, I second that. I feel both the articles are dissimilar with respect to content and sources. Also a previous admin mentioned current article is not promotional so it can’t be deleted in that category(Francisjk2020 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Endorse The nomination, though made in good faith, actually fails to address any issue with the deletion. CharlesWain (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir the article was deleted under G11 saying it was too promotional but multiple editors has stated that current article is not promotional but neutral.(Francisjk2020 (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Well, this is an interesting one. The re-generated article at Century Financial Consultancy wasn't substantially identical and therefore did not meet the criteria for WP:G4. It's also not hopelessly promotional and therefore did not meet the criteria for WP:G11. This argues for a "restore" outcome.
  Of course, when we delete an article about a company, creating a new version with new content and a slightly different name and slightly different sources, amounts to an end-run around the previous AfD. We rightly frown on that behaviour. This argues for an "endorse" outcome.
  The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial was excellent at the time Liz made it, but with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that User:Antonio Vinzaretti is not in good faith and their encyclopaedic judgment is open to doubt. We would have to weight their !vote at zero, and in my view that places the consensus at the AfD in doubt. I think we have good grounds for reopening the case for another look.
  Taking into account all these factors, I would prefer the DRV closer to say relist, but as a fresh AfD, for the content at Century Financial Consultancy, with a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial in the nomination statement.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biewer Terrier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion discussion took place in 2009. Since then, this dog has become increasingly notable, including having a standard, gaining full AKC recognition in 2021, and garnering mention in several books and scholarly articles While I definitely don't think we should restore the original Biewer Terrier article that was deleted in 2009 as it was not of suitable quality, if the article was to be recreated, I propose we restore [this version]. With some cleanup and the addition of the sources I mentioned, I think notability would be demonstrated.

The biggest issue that I forsee is that some publications consider them a subtype of the Yorkshire terrier, a similar issue to the Phalène, which the FCI recognizes as a separate breed from the Papillon dog but the AKC does not. Annwfwn (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

• @Annwfwn: please advise the editor who closed the AfD discussion, as outlined in Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Annwfwn (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. The linked version is sufficiently different from the version that was redirected in 2009, such that any attempts to delete or re-redirect should take place at a new AFD. Also, at the close of this discussion (and no earlier), Biewer Terrier (dog) should be speedy deleted (probably under G6 or G14). Frank Anchor 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation nothing wrong with that discussion, but there's no reason a page can't be recreated 15 years later with such clear new information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation as new sources establish independent notability. Owen× ☎ 01:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation speedily, as in the emerging consensus here should be plenty to ward off G4, should someone be inclined to NOT compare versions (which should, but doesn't always, keep one safe from G4). Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - The linked version is substantially different from the redirected version. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]