Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09 – Endorse, consensus is that the close is appropriate & that the only counterargument - that there was no argument for deletion . appears to be incorrect as notability concerns were raised. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The only reasons given for deletion were along the lines of there being "nothing worthwhile", which is not a Wikipedia policy or a reason for deletion - it seems like they are just alternatives to saying "I don't like it" or something along those lines. The article was sourced and showed there was widespread media coverage of the event. It met GNG. Even if there was some kind of consensus to incorporate the article into the main Sydney New Years' Eve page, deletion was not the answer - the sourced content should be merged into the main article at the relevant point. Bookscale (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)I am withdrawing this as I will put the sources into the main NYE article. Bookscale (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – closer properly read consensus that the subject did not meet NEVENT, as explained on the closer's talk page. Appears to be a WP:1AM situation. – Levivich 06:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse could not have been closed in any other way than delete, and the policy for deletion is sound. SportingFlyerT·C 07:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As I told the nominator despite their insistence, I did not vote! on WP:IDLI concerns, only that there's few sources to individual years of this event where the same things happen every year outside of host and theme changes, and it was all succinctly summarized already in Sydney New Year's Eve#2007–09 as WP:ROUTINE. Nate•(chatter) 08:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although the discussion seems lacking in consideration of redirection (WP:ATD). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The prose read like a promotional blurb for the event. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a tempundelete? In that discussion it was said that there are sources for this particular instance of the celebration and I'm unable to give that appropriate weight without seeing them.—S MarshallT/C 18:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Endorse, appropriate close.—S MarshallT/C 23:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was barely any different, besides playlists, than Sydney New Year's Eve 2011–12 (another article of the same vein that I have included in a mass nomination). The "this particular instance" test was meant to establish the individual edition of this event as not being notable enough for its own article, notwithstanding the parent event itself being notable, as most of the sources used were only just routine coverage of the preparation and aftermath (which is not a sufficient basis of a claim of notability). I don't see the ball drop have an article every edition because it's even more routine and barely changes year-to-year. The information used to make a separate article is mainly uncited trivia and fancruft. I, as such, say endorse deletion. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You shouldn't be comparing the 2011-12 page as a reason to delete this one. And just citing "trivia" and "fancruft" is not a reason for deletion - you need to explain how it violates Wikipedia policies. Just saying it is something doesn't make it violate the policy. Bookscale (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I can't see any other possible close for the AfD given the arguments that existed. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Clearly the correct close given the arguments presented at the AfD. ReykYO! 06:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what arguments? No one cared to explain how they violate Wikipedia policies. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - all the sources are local publication, within a day or two of the event. Given the headcount, and the reasonable policy basis that it's routine coverage of local events, it's the only real close possible. WilyD 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Honestly this probably would have been deleted at any point. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the appellant isn't arguing an error by the closer. This appeal looks like a re-litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's not, see below. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm saying the closer didn't take into account the fact that no policy was violated. And why can't the article be retained to allow the sources to be transferred to the main page? That suggestion was made and the closer just ignored it. Bookscale (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can someone answer my question about the sources? Bookscale (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookscale: The article has been temporarily undeleted during this review, you're welcome to look at the article history and scrape the sources for use elsewhere if you'd like. If that's not what you're looking for, I don't understand your question. SportingFlyerT·C 01:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In view of being able to do that, I have withdrawn the request for a review. Bookscale (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer does not appear to have made any errors in interpreting the consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close looks fine. Only keep said "because no real argument of any merit has been put forward to justify deletion" which was clearly false as the nomination questioned WP:N - and nothing was provided to show notability. There's a hail Mary claim about GNG, but no GNG sources are provided, and there's nothing in the article, except the day of (though someone in the AFD or closing statement should have noted that WP:NTEMP). Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hi Ad Orientem. I am writing to you regarding your AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis. No AfD participants commented specifically about the sources I found. I would like to follow the suggestion of the only AfD participant who commented after I provided the sources, who supported deletion "due [to] its state as WP:CORPSPAM" and who said "That's not to say someone can't re-create the article, properly sourced, and which establishes its notability, possibly using offline sources." I would like to stubify and recreate the article with the sources I found. Is that permitted by your AfD close? Would you move Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis to Draft:Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis? Cunard (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done @ Cunard I've draftified the page and the talk page. However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for draftifying the page. Wikipedia:Articles for creation says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles. Articles are created as drafts which are then submitted for review."
I am not a new editor. I do not have a conflict with the subject. Would you explain why recreation must require approval from WP:AFC? Why am I not permitted to move the draft back to mainspace when I believe it is ready?
@ Cunard... Because the article was just deleted at AfD and yours was the only comment favoring keeping it. I want another set of eyes on that page before it is moved back into the mainspace. Absent that, this could be reasonably seen as an end run around AfD. Sorry but that is a condition of my draftifying the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Matkins represented Blackstone Real Estate in Blackstone's $43 billion purchase of Equity Office Properties Trust (now called EQ Office). It has the largest group of real estate attorneys in California, which aside from the federal government of the United States was then the biggest owner of office area.
The closing admin wrote that approval from WP:AFC "is a condition of my draftifying the page". I am not listing the article at AfC since it is generally used by new editors and editors with a conflict of interest. I am instead listing at DRV to ask the community for permission to restore the article.
Allow restoration sources in the article show it meets NCORP, which isn't surprising as it's a major US commercial real estate law firm. – Levivich 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should have listed the article at AfC. I have no idea why you have such a dim view of it. The article still feels heavily promotional to me, and I can't access the sources to confirm WP:NCORP is met, so I'm not sure I would have accepted it. SportingFlyerT·C 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation in mainspace. I have no opinion about the outcome of the AfD or the article itself. I'm commenting here narrowly on the requirement to get an AfC review. Effectively, Ad Orientem has salted the title. Looking at WP:SALT, I don't see that this meets the criteria for salting, which is, for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. If the participants in the AfD felt the need for salting, they would have said so, and then the close could have reasonably included that. That's not the case here. Sometimes I'll salt a title as part of a close even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, if it's clear that the salting criteria apply. That's not the case either. Also, looking at WP:DRAFTS, it says, If you are logged in, creating a Draft version first is optional. So, this idea of requiring an AfC review before an established editor can re-create a non-salted title has no justification that I can see. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not see any problem with requiring an article to pass AfC before it gets recreated in mainspace. This article was deleted on WP:NCORP concerns, and looking at the sources, I'm not sure which WP:THREE would allow it to survive another AfD. The title is not salted and there is nothing preventing the user from creating the article straight into mainspace, and it would likely survive a WP:G4, but it would also likely be taken straight back to AfD on WP:NCORP grounds, which is a waste of everyone's time. AfC can take awhile true, but I've pretty much always provided a review on request if pinged on my talk page. SportingFlyerT·C 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: that's as clear an example of sysop overreach as I have ever seen. We'll be needing the trout for this one. —S MarshallT/C 17:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why that's undocumented. It's an extreme outlier and hard cases make bad law. I wouldn't want that particular discussion to be a precedent for other decisions.—S MarshallT/C 22:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not restore still fails WP:NCORP. I cannot access the vast majority of the articles, but many of the types of sources used in the article tend to be written off company press releases, are closely related to the company, or are not significant coverage of the company (ie so and so gets hired.) Happy to review WP:THREE, though. SportingFlyerT·C 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and forbid re-creation in mainspace without meeting WP:THREE. I read a promotional company summary that is WP:Reference bombed. It was properly deleted at AfD, to reverse that, a proponent should be required to show three (not more than three) notability-attesting, WP:CORP-meeting, sources. When that is done, put it through AfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are 10 pending DRVs right now, and 3,475 pending AfCs, why in the world would we ever send anyone to go stand in the queue with 3,475 articles to seek recreation, rather than having that done at DRV, where the queue is 10? Why would we add to AfC's workload like that, when we are perfectly capable of handling it here? – Levivich 02:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because this DRV fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. At best it falls under #3, but this isn't "significant new information," it's just an article that was deleted, draftifyed, and then improved. The options were either take it to AfC to ensure it gets peer reviewed and will pass another deletion discussion, or be bold and create the article knowing there will likely be another deletion discussion. DRV is for reviewing errors in the deletion process, and but this DRV is essentially AfD part two. SportingFlyerT·C 04:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely normal for an editor to come to DRV for permission to recreate a draft said to be improved, to avoid possible G4 deletions. I have participated in quite a few such discussions. If WP:DRVPURPOSE doesn't explictly specify that as a valid reason for a nom, it should, becauae that has been teh standing practice for years. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation in mainspace and trout admin AfC isn't a required process nor should it be. There was no basis for WP:SALT, so yeah, this is just an out-of-policy decision. Nothing prevents another AfD (or speedy if someone feels it qualifies as a recreation). I'll admit I'm not thrilled with the sources in the article, but that's AfD's job, not AfC. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not being thrilled with the sources in the article is also AfC's purpose, it's just that deletion isn't required there. SportingFlyerT·C 04:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are three sources about Allen Matkins:
The book notes in the editor's note: "The Legal 500 United States is a guide to 'the best of the best' - the pre-eminent firms in the world's strongest and most competitive markets." The book notes in the introduction:
The Legal 500 United States is a guide to commercial law firms in the US.
Each chapter falls into two distinct parts: the editorial section and the directory section. The editorial section is a mixture of factual information and commentary. ...
All editorial comments and listings are completely independent and no firm has been able to secure its inclusion within the editorial sections through payment.
The directory section is made up of professional cards based on information supplied by the firms and approved by them prior to publication.
Allen Matkins appears in the editorial section and not in the directory section.
Allen Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory LLP is described as "one of the best" for land use matters.
The firm acted as lead land use lawyers for Google in respect of the negotiation of a 40-year lease over 40 acres of unimproved land from NASA, and the entitlement of up to 1.2m sq ft of offices and research and development facilities. The practice provided strategic advice regarding NEPA and CEQA compliance and assisted in-house counsel in managing the legal team and liasing with the business team.
[three more paragraphs]
The book provides two paragraphs about Allen Matkins' "representation of builders and homeowners" on page 692.
"The best real estate law firm, pound-for-pound in the business", Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP's 91-attorney Southern California real estate practice has a superlative reputation in the region. Strong on both the transactional and financial sides, the group is recognized in particular for its expertise in the representation of developers.
For example, the firm represented Lincoln Property and ASB Capital Management in connection with the acquisition, financing, development and leasing of the Campus at Playa Vista. Work included advising on the acquisition of approximately 15 acres of developable land and nearly 1m square feet of FAR, an acquisition loan, a construction loan and a 600,000 sq ft lease to Fox Media Interactive. This has been one of the highest-profile developments in Southern California over the past 25 years.
The article is 43 paragraphs long (with 12 of those paragraphs about other law firms with real estate practices). The article notes:
With the state's largest dedicated group of real estate attorneys, Allen Matkins long has been considered a leading force in California's commercial real estate industry. The Daily Journal sat down with the firm's leadership to assess how it has navigated the wild swings in the market over the past few years, to serve as a barometer of sorts for the state's legal real estate industry.
...
The firm also has seen huge transactions fall apart. In October, Natsis, partner Michael McFadden and associate Crystal Lofing represented an investor consortium known as California First in its purchase of 11 state office properties for $2.3 billion, which would have been the top deal in the U.S. last year had it closed as scheduled.
...
At the height of the boom, Allen Matkins was at the heart of a rash of giant portfolio acquisition deals. Those included one that grabbed headlines across the nation: Natsis' representation of Blackstone Real Estate in the mammoth private equity firm's $43 billion acquisition of Equity Office Properties Trust, which at the time was the largest owner of office space in the U.S. other than the federal governnment.
The article is 14 paragraphs long. The article notes:
Problems with Allen Matkins first arose when Burlingame Capital counter-sued Qmect in a state court action Qmect filed against the investment firm. Burlingame Capital accused Allen Matkins attorneys of failing to serve a crucial defendant with a copy of the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the defendant from the case. Burlingame Capital asserts it never authorized Allen Matkins to drop the defendant, Basem Zakariya, and that the omission meant the Judsons could not collect on a $4.8 million judgment awarded by the court.
The next alleged error came during the bankruptcy of Kids Connection, when Allenn Matkins failed to obtain the appointment of a court-appointed trustee on behalf of Burlingame Capital, which was a creditor in the bankruptcy. That led to the continued failure of Burlingame Capital to collect on the $4.8 million judgment in the earlier case, even as the company spent another $1.5 million on legal fees.
...
Throughout Allen Matkins' representation of Burlingame Capital, which ended in July 2009, the Judsons claim the firm regularly used deceptive billing practices to inflate and pad their bills.
The cross-complaint details what Burlingame Capital views as five methods Allen Matkins attorneys used to charge unconsionable fees for their work, including overstaffing their matters, charging "impossible and improbable amounts of time" for tasks completed, charging to correct their own mistakes, and sending duplicative bills for the same task.
The Los Angeles Daily Journal, along with the legal community it covers, has grown up.
Three years shy of its centennial anniversary, the Daily Journal, with a statewide circulation of 21,000, is the largest newspaper in the nation serving the legal community. Most observers also consider it the best.
The five-day-a-week newspaper, which sells for 25 cents, has become required reading not only for lawyers and judges but also for public officials, journalists and others who need to know about changes in law and local government.
Comment: I would have preferred to recreate the article directly instead of list the draft at WP:DRV or WP:AFC. But I decided to respect the closing admin's instruction that I not recreate the article myself. WP:AFC says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles." I am not a new editor so I do not think AfC is the right process for this article to go through.
I do not consider the article to be promotional. But I welcome comments about which parts of the article are promotional.
“WP:AFC says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles." That, is a lie. AfC is for waylaying inept spammers of promotion and junk. However, AfC is, I think, a good option for a quick re-creation of an AfD-deleted topic with a promotional concern. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - G4 clearly doesn't apply to the new draft, so there's no cause to prevent someone from creating a new article. If someone genuinely believes the new draft fails WP:N, they're free to avail themselves of Af. Attempts to forbid main-space recreation unless it meets some editors personal standards are incredibly inappropriate. WilyD 13:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read the above discussion and after looking at the page, I am satisfied that it is sufficiently different from the deleted version that recreation should not be precluded. Some concerns have been expressed and editors are free to send the new page to AfD. Further, some have suggested that I was attempting to de-facto SALT the article. I respectfully disagree. Cunard requested that I userfy the page, which is not required but is often done on a courtesy basis, and is almost always regarded as within the discretion of the deleting admin. I chose to do so requiring only that the page be reviewed at AfC before being moved back into the mainspace. My reason for this is that Cunard was the only editor favoring keeping the original article at the AfD discussion and I wanted a second set of eyes on any revised page before it was sent back into the mainspace. That is hardly salting and I do not believe it an especially onerous requirement. It is also one that I have imposed on other similar occasions w/o controversy. If there is a consensus here that I have exceeded the bounds of administrator discretion by making userfication of deleted articles conditional on this or some similar requirement, then I apologize. In the future I will avoid such controversy by declining all requests for userfication except in those cases where there is a clear consensus for that outcome in the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but this feels more than a bit like "I'll take my ball home if you won't let me do what I want". You have discretion on userfication. And you can take that ball home if you feel it's appropriate. But yes, requiring AfC before you do so does exceed your authority. "However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC." is just a bit too much of an imperial decree. I don't think that's within an admin's remit. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been a huge fan of userfication except when the AfD calls for it, which is one of the reasons I typically make it conditional. So yeah; I am taking my ball home. There is no shortage of other admins who are fine with userfying deleted articles. But I am no longer one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though sorry to hear it. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. So we'll be needing yet another rule, then, about when it's appropriate to be obstructive about userspace copies of deleted material to good faith accounts in good standing. Off the top of my head, I think copyvios and BLP issues no, everything else yes. Sysops are elected to help appropriate content get written.—S MarshallT/C 03:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas where it should go? Maybe someplace in section 5 of WP:DELETION? Hobit (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably an RfC. I think a rule is probably necessary but I disagree with what's proposed and it needs to be brought to the attention of the community. SportingFlyerT·C 05:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration. AfC ois not, and never should be, mandatory. Any autoconfirmed user can create a title in mainspace, or move a title to mainspace from userspace or draft space, unless the title has been salted, or is sufficiently similar to a previously deleted article that G4 applies. This has not been salted, and IMO is not sufficiently similar for G4 to apply. It is not, and should not be, within the authority of an AfD closer to require additional conditions for a new version, or a return from draft. Of course, being moved to mainspace it is available for a new AfD if anyone chooses to nominate it, which going thoguh AfC might make less likley (or doing more work while out of mainspace). I express no view on how this would fair at a hypothetical future AfD, but if an editor chooses to run that risk. s/he is free to. Trout closer for trying to impose a rule without any consensus for such a policy. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration -- there's no reason to use AfC. I've rejected/deleted many law firm articles at AfC or NPP on the grounds of clear and obvious promotionalism--they typically resemble an advertisement listing cases where they managed to get their clients large amounts of money.. The current article in draft is not in that class. It's a straightforward descriptive article, without puffery. just as would be expected from anything Cunard writes. (I don't think the original version was promotional either: it was not CORPSPAM, there was no reference bombing, but there was perhaps a failure to clearly meet WP:NCORP. I would probably have voted to draftify, not delete. )
But Cunard can shortcut this. All they need do is submit it. Submitted drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, and at AFC several reviewers (including myself) are making a consistent effort to identify and approve the clearly good ones as soon as possible after submission--I try to spot a few every day. Someone is very likely to quickly approve this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussion has not been closed and consensus looks fairly clear to me, I have boldly moved the draft into the article mainspace. Yes, I'm involved. Sue me. This has dragged on long enough. If anybody still has issues with the page, WP:AfD <<< is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
