I do not think the process was fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it. Other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. Khiikiat (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involved) because 1) contested NAC, and 2) the close turns in part on a subtle question: does the article in The New Yorker (and, to a lesser extent, Al Jazeera) constitute RS coverage even though it doesn't mention the word "Chakobsa", and 3) is a NOPAGE argument sufficiently policy based to overcome a topic with adequate reliable sourcing (NYT, New Yorker, Variety, etc.) Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The content of the page is irrelevant. What the AfD examined is the notability of its subject, which is the same whether the article is fleshed out or empty. It was closed correctly by an experienced and capable non-admin. Owen×☎19:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - The substantial expansion of the article during the seven days that the AFD was running warrants allowing the previous Redirect !voters to consider whether to change to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion, as an active participant at articles for deletion, I do not see a WP:GNG pass here at all. I mean, I would nominate an article like this for deletion discussion. I went through every cited source, I do not see any of them that satisfy the three required criteria for GNG, they're mostly satisfying only one or two, it's either a source is not reliable, but is independent, or the source is reliable but does not provide substantial coverage of the subject (mostly citation #1 to #8). Relisting this would be unnecessary, why? Well, because even the reworked version is still evidently not passing GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Three additional redirect !votes were made after the WP:HEY argument was made and after the additional material was added. It is incorrect to suggest the redirect !voters had not considered the additions. They were just not convinced that the sources were significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I note that one of the three additional !voters was a new user but two were well established and experienced, and the consensus of that discussion was clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was not a WP:BADNAC; an experienced AfD participant conducted a NAC with a clear consensus, so this is a bit of a red herring as a ground for appealing. Several !voters supported redirection even after the improvements to the article. GNG is not merely a matter of sourcing; it's a two-part test and participants clearly did not believe this topic met the second test of WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The closer's statement above makes me think this was indeed a WP:BADNAC, even if consensus was correct. Closing a discussion is about evaluating what others have said, not inserting your own judgment. SportingFlyerT·C17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer You entirely misunderstood my comment then. My closure and assessment of the discussion has nothing to do with what I just said, that was why I said save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion. This is not the first time I’m assessing the consensus in a discussion and it would not be different. I am fully aware that closing a discussion is assessing the consensus from it and not your own opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it is worth it to mention that on 12 November 2024, I mentioned to an editor that my role as the closer is not to evaluate the sources myself, as doing so would constitute a supervote. My responsibility is to close the discussion based on the consensus established by the participants, not my personal judgment, so, the source analysis I just did had nothing to do with my initial closure. I hope this helps and also gives you context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus to redirect. This was not a WP:BADNAC and there is no requirement that the discussion be unanimous for a non-admin to close. The WP:HEY argument was rejected by three subsequent redirect voters as well. FrankAnchor19:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion. That said, it is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources cited in the article or the sources in the discussion. It is the role of the closer to summarize how the participants viewed the sources and the strength of the policy arguments. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to push back on this. When Sandstein did his own incorrect source analysis on Principal Snyder (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27), we endorsed his conclusion. Now, you're saying we should forbid the closer from doing their own source analysis in this case that would have shown the redirect !voters to have been incorrect. Which is it? This is not a WAX argument, just a plea for consistency in whether closers are expected to do, or not do, their own source assessments as part of assessing rough consensus, by assigning less weight to incorrect assertions. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same position I took with Sandstein's close, and just as here, I criticized Sandstein's characterization of the sources. I do not believe that a closer should evaluate the underlying source(s) brought up during the discussion. However, a closer can, and probably shoud, especially with a contentious nomination, characterize how participants discussed the sources. - Enos733 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure reflects consensus. That the article was expanded before the closure does not warrant a relist because the expansion was mentioned in the AfD, without convincing (most) subsequent AfD participants to support keeping the article. Sandstein 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The editors seem to have shown undue hurry to close the issue. Please see given link which mentions that the said company alongwith one more (from same country Austria) - they both together hold 82% of world's GLOBAL SHARE of wafer bonding for chipmaking using silicon wafers (https://www.ft.com/content/1c4fe3f0-7d44-4346-833b-e1beca9298c9) - is there anything more needed for NOTABILITY - apart from another internet find earlier given in the deletion discussion already. Another user @Cameremote had tried to burnish the article - but no editor seems to be willing to listen and just reverted. I have nothing to do with this company or their product - and I simply came across this article - because probably what caught my eye was the text "2nd nomination for deletion". Jn.mdel (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have just reverted Cameremote's edits too. They took a neutrally-written article and turned it into something I'd have speedied as spam if not for its history (choice sentence: "With a global presence, EVG is recognized for contributing to the semiconductor industry and delivering cutting-edge equipment to fabs worldwide.") —Cryptic10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you may be confused about the term "notability" - it's Wikipedia-specific jargon in this context, and doesn't have its usual meaning of "worthy of note". The short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nearly every word of that is jargon too: see WP:Notability for the long version, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for how we specifically apply it to companies (short version: more strictly than for most subjects). —Cryptic11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying - I cannot now see /access what Cameremote may have specifically updated - but if as per you the article was neutrally-worded before those updates (which were later reverted) - then so be it.
Overturn to no consensus. The AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite; I think between it all there is sufficient evidence of notability. Accordingly the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle Incorrect; the nomination statement was based on the original version of the article and included an analysis of every source in the original version. My comment below includes my analysis of every added source in the rewrite. I agree with @Cryptic that Cameremote's rewrite did not really improve things but the original did not have any qualifying sources either. It would perhaps be helpful for an admin to undelete the revision history so DRV participants can review it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(And when I say "original version," I mean the version that existed after it had been recreated on 5 January 2025 in a series of several edits that day; not the version that preceded the 2015 "delete" AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse (involved, as nominator). I confess I am not sure what grounds this is being brought on? If undue hurry is the objection, well, it ran for a full week and attracted several !votes and comments. It seems like there's a nod to DRV#3 by bringing up the FT article, I can't view it because I don't have a subscription. From the limited view I have it seems to call the company "EVG", which is perhaps why it didn't come up in a search.) However, in the discussion, no sources were deemed to contribute to WP:NCORP, so bringing up a single source on appeal would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV, which I can't tell either way. I also sincerely question the appellant's ability to evaluate whether it is a qualifying source, considering they argued in the AfD that a primary source press release from a competitor counted toward notability, and indeed in the discussion above the appellant is coming back to the company seems "notable", which is not grounds for appeal or for keeping. As for the consensus, during the discussion, there were three in favor of deletion and two in favor of keeping. But Owen correctly weighed the contributions. Cameremote tried to improve the article but did not convince the other editors with the new sources. They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end. The appellant cast the only true keep !vote, but did not rebut the source analysis I provided and offered only a single defective source as discussed above; I and another editor discussed why this source was unconvincing. Owen could have relisted to generate a stronger consensus, but I think a sufficient delete consensus existed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. The FT article is visible and clear about the global share of said company - if some of you cannot read on the link - I can upload a pdf print of that webpage also - but i am sure some of you can read it too - 82% global share between two companies from Austria of wafer bonding for chips which power almost everything in our today's world is not a joke
But all said and done - from my completely neutral point of view of someone who has nothing to do with that company or that product or that country - my submissions highlight that we need to be more open to giving a chance to a submission Jn.mdel (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adhesives Magazine is a WP:TRADES publication and thus generally not considered independent. Please do not upload the FT article text as that would be a copyright violation. As for your final point, this article has been created twice and now deleted twice. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We have standards, you may disagree, but coming here without a valid reason to overturn the deletion decision is wasting the time of the community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be treating Deletion Review as a second shot at having an AfD discussion. That's not what it is. It's for if there was an error by the closer or one of the specific grounds identified at WP:DRV. OK, that's my last response here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not help but respond to the nominator's last post - so as to clarify the original nominator's post and the statement - "They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end" - i guess you all are way too senior to be argued with :
1. In the AFD you asked for an independent business magazine source - I got it here as didn't get time to post in AFD before it was closed - to that you now say this is "generally not considered independent"
2. I then give you the FT article which names the company as part of two having 82% global share - you say - ”would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV"
3. I bring out the fact that same company is covered on German wiki since 2010 - then someone chips in "will still have to pass our notability guideline" - implying German wiki is non-judicious.
4. And last but not the least from where it all started - that a competitor like 3M is publicly settling their patent infringement with this company way back in 2008 (for which not only 3M's PR but even US court link was probably provided by camerote) which surely implies distinct specialisation of the company - and which then also seems in sync with the more recent FT article of 2022 too.
I am not sure whether we appreciate that knowledge-driven companies may not be given to press or publicizing about their intellectual property/ patents etc.
Do give it a thought - and maybe cross-referencing / cross-validation from other language wikis too may not be a bad idea - unless the statement made by someone about "our notability guidelines" means that you are separate from others wikis - although I thought we all are editors on the same platform - but offcourse you people have much, much more responsibility, experience and duties as administrators to fulfill & decide (because sanctity of information and validation of correctness is indeed of utmost importance). Jn.mdel (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the AfD did run for a full week, and, while low participation could have warranted a relist, closing it was also reasonable. The nominator's original statement did address the version prior to the rewrite. Seconding Cryptic's comment that the rewrite itself was also far from an improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I finally settled on endorse after considering relisting or overturning to no consensus, which would also be good options here - the keep !voters (yes, HEYing an article, even promotionally, should be treated as a keep in my book if you don't specifically bold your !vote) had their sources dissected enough that I think the close is reasonable, but I have absolutely no objection if this is relisted or overturned. SportingFlyerT·C19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to commend the nominator for a very thorough review of extant sources. Whatever the outcome, this is anything but a lazy nomination. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether as an earlier participant in afd discussion, I can vote here or not - otherwise it would be "OVERTURN" in my view.
Simply having an article on another Wikipedia project does not establish notability by itself; the subject of the article will still have to pass our notability guidelines. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable conclusion from three Deletes including the nomination and one Keep. A Relist would have been reasonable also, but was not required. It may not be directly relevant that the rewrite of the article that was in progress was introducing marketing buzzspeak, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, but no progress was being made to bring the article closer to corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. No real challenge to the deletion has been made. There was a consensus regarding the lack of notability. Everything was done correctly. I am separately noting that Stifle wrote that the AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite, which would have been a serious challenge, but that is not what happened. —Alalch E.18:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This biography needs an independent page (Article), opposes being merged into another, requests to restore this page to its current state
reason :- The deletion discussion of this page ended quickly, could not participate in the discussion,
another one did not participate in this more editors, the editor who raised the redirect argument did not say the reason.
the editor who raised the keep argument brought references but the closing editor did not consider it.
This living biography was born and raised in India, acted in Malayalam cinema in India[1][2], and has references.
Endorse redirect. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It does not consider requests that merely constitute an assertion that the AFD was wrong and seek to re-argue it. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also endorse what Jclemens said below about spinning back out the redirect as a normal editorial action if sufficient sourcing is added. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD was a mistake, doesn't mean. It was mentioned as a fact, this is not a reason,
I could not attend it, so I could not argue, the editor who voted to 'redirect' on AFD did not give a reason for it,
Relist Nom, and one each delete, keep, and redirect makes consensus rather iffy to call. Now, if that were after 2+ relists, I'd see the NC close as more reasonable, but the appellant here is asking for more time on an AfD closed without a relist. Alternatively, anyone can edit the redirected page, expand sourcing significantly--and I would warn against poor quality sources here, which seem to plague Asian pop culture--and undo the redirect without needing DRV consent. Again, this is to improve the encyclopedia, not a shortcut to get one's own way. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The nom and one delete vote assert there is no WP:SIGCOV. The keep vote provides a few references which I do not believe are adequately refuted. There is also a redirect vote that had no substance to it whatsoever that should be discounted. A relist will allow for better analysis of the sources brought up both at the AFD and here and for consensus to form. I currently do not see any consensus in the AFD. FrankAnchor14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect as stated by Stifle. I don't think a relist would changes anything given that the concern of WP:NEWSORGINDIA sourcing (some were included above) wasn't addressed and/or ignored (topic change) completely. Also noting that a Korean sourcing was included above, which, inadvertently strengthens my AfD's rationale on WP:PASSINGMENTION. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that however NEWSORGINDIA was added (diff) per an RfC on RSN (permalink) that coincidentally also derived from an AfD on Indian BLP hence I don't believe that doesn't carry certain weight compared to a typical information page. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I disagree with the closing statement that the redirect is A sensible, unopposed ATD. It was opposed by the editor who said to Keep. With a sloppy closing statement, it seems better to relist both to attract more opinions and to get a different closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- I don't think extending the discussion would result in a different outcome; however, not opposed to letting the discussion run just to see. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close, no corrective action needed. The article can be restored as a normal editorial action by saving a version with the changes made to it needed to overcome the reason why it was deleted. But when you do this, apply a wide margin so that the content speaks for itself and a new AfD seems clearly unjustified.—Alalch E.18:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The redirection reflects the AfD's rough consensus that an article is unwarranted. Relisting is not very likely to lead to a clearer consensus because the sources evoked in the AfD are from Indian entertainment media, which can be and often are paid to provide favorable coverage to celebrities, see Paid news in India, and therefore are often unreliable. Recreation remains possible if somebody finds substantial coverage in non-Indian reliable sources. Sandstein 23:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a fair reading of consensus. Keep !vote was successfully refuted in my opinion. Leaves a consensus not retaining the article, and redirect was proposed and is a viable AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While a relist would have been within discretion, it is reasonable to read a rough consensus against the notability of the article subject, and a redirect as a valid option given that rough consensus. I would consider this to be the correct close, precision of the exact phrasing of the closing statement (unopposed ATD) notwithstanding. Additionally, while NEWSORGINDIA is not a policy or guideline, information pages such as RSP are still persuasive in discussions. For example, it would be unusual for a MREL or GUNREL source to be usable in supporting notability, or a GENREL source be rejected on grounds of reliability (rather than the other criteria). An argument would have had to been made to counter the specific concerns noted, even if those concerns relate to a broad category of sources rather than any individual specific source, and this was not done. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
