- ShifCustom (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The delete proposer claimed a lack of notability due to unreliable sources. In reality, before nomination there were reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources that wrote about it in detail (svaboda.org, sb.by, tut.by, kp.by, Interfax, onliner.by, abw.by). Also, notability is not related to the reliability of the sources in the article (WP:ARTN, WP:NPOSSIBLE). References to awards, that is, to professionals, confirm the notability of the subject. Closer to the discussion wrote that after the nomination sources were not added. He did not write anything about notability. Also, in reality, sources have been added, including found in Google Books (Uli Cloesen books) and others (German specialized editions "Custombike" and "Dream Machines", Russian "Moto", a directory of the Belarusian Union of Designers, several American materials). Discussion without consensus to delete. Article can be improved (WP:NEXIST). Improved on the home wiki (be:), did not translate into English until I finish. Sources can and can come new. In 2020 there is a new publication, it was added to the article. Maksim L. (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but Allow Recreation in "Draft:" namespace I'm not seeing any qualifying, reliable, independent sources doing a Google web search. There's a couple articles from Motonews and Jalopnik, and potentially, Interfax, on which WP:GNG may be at least plausible; however, I have my doubts as to whether there's enough independent source coverage to meet the second WP:CORPDEPTH test. Thus, I think the close was reasonable, on two relists, but am fine with allowing a draft and have it go through AfC as a second set of eyes. Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A small company (<10 employees, my assessment) is not separable from Yuri Shif. A significant coverage will be a biography of the person. I can do it. If the move to Yuri Shif (customizer), the article will only have the date of birth and the foundation of ShifCustom in 2003. The usual situation for companies in the customization industry. But he builds motorcycles, rated as notability items of a Kustom Kulture. The Jalopnik has a retelling of material from the Onliner.by. The author also writes that he does not know the Russian language and uses a Google translator. It is not clear why a Jalopnik can be more reliable than a Onliner.by (editable media owned by Alexa). The reasons for the unreliability of RFE/RL and the largest national newspaper Belarus Today and the online media TUT.by are also not obvious. Maksim L. (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but allow draft as per User:Dmehus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the deletion, since I think consensus was clear at the AfD. But allow a draft as above. Reyk YO! 19:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Colleagues, please write on what exactly doubts are based on for the article. To make it clear what to seek and improve. Is it true that doubts are not about the notability of the subject or the reliability of the sources, but about the significant coverage in the sources? Perhaps non-English sources does not allow us to estimate the significant coverage in them? The article has an English source[1], what is its problem with the significant coverage? RFE/RL provides three large materials with a description of the company, a description of the company's projects and plans, and a list of awards (800-2000 words; I used chronologically the latest material). This can be said about the materials of Interfax, Tut.by, Onliner. The printed directory of the BUD (about 300 notability persons and objects of Belarusian design) provides short information about the date of birth and education of the founder of the company, the date of foundation, projects, awards. Is this not a significant coverage? I used news materials and brief references only to details. Specialized motorcycle media by default consider the subject notability (usually they write "the next project of Yuri Shif" and the like); they wrote more about the company 10-15 years ago, now they describe motorcycles. Maksim L. (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maksim L. I concur with PK650. DRV is not about having a second attempt to re-hash an AfD. It's about evaluating the closure was properly ascertained, which in this case it was. No one refuted that the page shouldn't be deleted, so it wasn't enough to restart the existing AfD. That said, given that this is for a Russian motorcycle shop, whose sources may not all be in English and because even after two relistings, it only generated participation from one other participant besides yourself and the nominator, we've endorsed, unanimously thus far, the idea of draftifying the article, so that it can have a second set of eyes look at the sourcing in Draft: namespace. You might even be so fortunate as to have Robert McClenon as your AfC reviewer. Doug Mehus T·C 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did not understand that DRV only estimates the correctness of closing procedure AfD. Formally, AfD closing procedure is correct. It is a pity that consensus is determined by the counting of votes (and only one), and not by a reasonable opinion. So can delete any article if someone proposed a discussion about it in AfD. Thanks. Maksim L. (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The deletion review nominator doesn't seem to understand the process. This is not a venue to rehash AfD discussions. The consensus was clearly and correctly interpreted as delete, therefore I am endorsing it. As for creating a draft, they're perfectly allowed to edit such a page, but please bear in mind the page is likely to be deleted again unless SIGCOV is demonstrated when it wasn't previously. As others have already mentioned, new sources (that none of us have found) are unlikely to enhance the subject's claim of notability. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did not understand the en:wiki procedures. Sources in the article comply with SIGCOV; no one has expressed any other reasonable opinion. I did a good search in Russian, English and German. Available (and reliable) now on the Internet in these languages - found. To find additionally (and reliable), I think, is not possible at the moment. There are also printed sources that are not available on the Internet, I received copies of some of them, others may become available on the Internet over time. There are enough sources in the article. The notability and significant coverage is not measured by quantity. Thanks. Maksim L. (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Allow WP:REFUND to draft, but I think it is a WP:Reference bombed WP:CORP failure. The google cache shows something that looks like a faithful translation of ru:ShifCustom. Discourage resubmission within six months of the AfD result, short of dramatic new sourcing that clearly overcomes the reasons for deletion discussed at AfD. AfD decisions need some respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|