Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 13

13 June 2024

PAR_Technology

PAR_Technology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi there - for full disclosure, I'm a current PAR employee. I noticed that there currently isn't a page for PAR on Wikipedia and that it was deleted in Jan 2018. I would have tried to go on the talk page for those who discussed its deletion but those users don't seem to be active on Wikipedia anymore.

I would like to share that PAR Technology hired a new CEO, Savneet Singh, in Dec 2018, eleven months after the page was deleted. Since Savneet joined PAR, he raised capital and acquired several different business in the restaurant technology and hospitality space, including Restaurant Magic, Punchh, MENU Technologies, Stuzo, and TASK. Today PAR trades on the New York Stock Exchange with a Market Capitalization of $1.6 billion dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.

I noticed that many of the comments in the deletion discussion were centered around PAR being a government contractor business; however, PAR has sold off its government businesses and is now a pure-play food service technology company. Among PAR's clients are Tier-1 restaurants like Burger King and Wendy's. Many of PAR's competitors in this restaurant & hospitality technology space, such as Olo and Toast, have pages on Wikipedia. PAR's acquisitions have made news on notable outlets like TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and CNBC.

To summarize: although PAR Technology as a company still carries the same name, under new leadership (hired after the page was initially deleted), it has been transformed from a USA government contractor into a food service technology business. I'd kindly like to request for review to see if opinions may have changed on if PAR Technology should have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you! LeLiPAR (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• A new article could be created, the deletion was a long time ago and as long as a new article asserted importance then it shouldn't be speedily deleted. But if it's really a notable company then people who aren't employed by the company will write an article about it. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Allow review of draft - User:LeLiPAR may create a draft and submit it for Articles for Creation review. That is a proper way of dealing with conflicts of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Speedily restore to draft and go through AfC. The deletion was correct, the request is fine. We don't need a week here. Star Mississippi 16:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• As above and thank you for being open and forthright about your connection with the company in question. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Restore to draft and go through AfC. The deletion was correct, this request should have gone to WP:REFUND. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  in the requestor's defense @SmokeyJoe, with the AfD I'm pretty sure REFUND would have kicked it here anyway. I see no issue with the request, but believe it can be speedily actioned. As @Robert McClenon has said, some tweaks to the process are likely needed to make it easier all around. Star Mississippi 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:REFUND should improve its instructions to distinguish better between REFUND to mainspace vs REFUND to draftspace (or userspace). If a REFUND admin declined a REFUND to Draftspace request, and it came here, I would be criticising that admin.

  There is no tweaks to process applicable, only tweaks to instructions/advice to applicants needed.

  DRV should be reserved for actual reviews over a complaint that someone did something wrong. DRV should not be a standard gateway to restarting articles, unless there’s opposition. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wholly agree with you there. There have been far too many here recently that didn't need to be, although the filing made sense. Star Mississippi 12:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose could use improvement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Otago NORML

Otago NORML (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of my closure following an inquiry on my talk page by Dclemens1971. I closed this as "keep" after determining that there was a consensus that coverage in the Otago Daily Times was sufficient to establish notability. I would appreciate feedback as to whether this was a reasonable decision. If it was not, would it have been better to close the discussion as "no consensus," or to relist it? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Relist (involved). Thanks for flagging this. While there were more "keep" !votes than "delete," it was 5 to 3, so not a strong consensus and had only been relisted once. Four of the five "keep" supporters !voted before the applicable criteria for WP:BRANCH, which requires greater scope of sources beyond local news for a chapter of an organization, were brought into the discussion, and thus it would have been worthwhile to allow more discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure WP:BRANCH applies. A branch of what exactly? I'm also not sure we have the GNG met. A school paper can be a good source (though I'd be leery of an article where that was the only reliable source of any depth...). Can someone who wants to keep this chime in with the WP:THREE best sources? [1] seems to not have significant coverage of the group. The school paper article is, of course, solid in terms of depth. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It appears to have been established as a branch of NORML New Zealand, which is itself a branch of NORML. (The Otago organization appears to be inactive but see description on its old Facebook page.) Despite its depth, the school paper doesn't qualify for GNG under WP:RSSM. I don't want to relitigate the AfD though, I just thought it appeared that there was not a consensus formed and that a relist might have brought in additional perspective and a firm consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I get not wanting to relitigate (that really isn't the point of DRV). But what I'm trying to do is gage the strength of arguments made in the AfD. An issue you raised here was WP:BRANCH not having time to be discussed in the AfD. Our article says "It is not affiliated to the national New Zealand cannabis law reform organisation NORML New Zealand". So I'm wondering if the WP:BRANCH argument made above is relevant. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sources indicate it was founded as a chapter but at some point lost its affiliation (see its facebook page and archived website: https://web.archive.org/web/20101121002708/http://www.otagonorml.com/?q=node/13). Even if affiliation was removed at some indeterminate point, it still seems reasonable to apply the WP:BRANCH criteria to a group that appeared to operate as a chapter for most of its existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn I don't see keep as a possible result here. It's clear from the keep !votes that coverage is very marginal. One delete !voter brings up WP:BRANCH, the other clearly discusses the coverage, these are the two strongest !votes in the discussion. Finally, the final keep !voter, and only post relist voter, both correctly (in terms of general policy) and incorrectly cites policy, if WP:BRANCH applies - the NORML New Zealand page says it is a branch and this page says it is not a branch and none of the sources, well, work, and in any case that's sort of beyond what a closer should be doing. I probably would have relisted this, but I think I might have endorsed a delete result and no consensus probably makes the most sense if someone has to close this, even though I think the delete !votes are stronger. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, I spot checked one of the ODT listings, which said it was indeed a branch of NORML NZ. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Relist or close as N/C and allow a renom in the short term future. While a keep isn't wrong per se, I don't see that the case being made strongly for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse I think merge (even though the !votes were mostly binary keep/delete) would have been the best policy-based outcome in light of that discussion, with no consensus also a strong contender. Keep would have been my third choice, but I see no reason to NOT relist an additional time. Some of our experienced closers will relist with a statement asking the participants to choose between two non-deletion arguments--merge or keep, in this case--and that might have been the best thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)