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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. StarMississippi02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi everyone, I'd like to firstly say thanks for all of the help from all of the folks here. In case it'd be helpful, I'd thought that this article belonged in Deletion review for reason #3 on when it should be used: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Otago NORML – There is a very narrow consensus below that the close would be best as 'no consensus', although worth noting that there was plenty of sentiment that 'keep' was also within administrator discretion. (The majority of people who advocated 'endorse' also noted that no consensus was reasonable or indeed preferred.) The close will be changed to no consensus to allow for earlier renomination by any interested editor, per the sentiment below that allowing this is the best outcome. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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)[reply]
RelistOverturn to no consensus, agnostic about whether to 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) EDITED TO ADD: After the discussion below I am clarifying my !vote and I am now agnostic about whether the AfD is relisted. A N/C close is more closely aligned with the outcome of the discussion and allows a future nominator to write a better nomination statement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The school paper does not contribute to notability of a student organization. See the unanimous consensus recorded here (given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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, ifWP: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. SportingFlyerT·C05:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. StarMississippi16:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
“Merge” would have been a WP:Supervote. I would !vote to overturn it. A “no consensus” close with instructions to discuss a merge on the talk page. Interestingly, this was done fourteen years ago at Talk:Otago NORML#Merge proposal, but a call of an AfD consensus to merge requires much more than a few mentions of it and a single I replied comment fourteen years ago. One participant mentioned “Redirect” as a !vote. “Redirect” could be a better basis of a WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are to ferret out the rough consensus based on a discussion. That's not limited to counting noses, or even the options listed. Picking an outcome other than the obvious one getting the most !votes could be a supervote... but it can also be a correct reading of a policy-based consensus. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have the privilege of calling a rough consensus. If that prerogative were being used, I would expect a much better closing explanation, including use of the words “rough consensus”. Maybe a rough consensus call with a good closing statement would have been good, but then, who is going to merge what? The closer? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure speculating beyond this point is useful, but yes, a merge to NORML New Zealand, with an appropriate closing statement, to be done by whomever (I don't normally see closers doing merges themselves, but I'm sure it happens) would be a close I consider appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and do not relist. There is clearly no consensus to delete and there is no indication that consensus was “trending” in that direction. There was no additional support for delete after the AFD was relisted, only a single, well-reasoned keep vote which refuted some of the claims made by the delete/merge voters. I do think a better case was made for delete/merge, which is why NC is a better close than keep. However, clearly there is not consensus to not keep the page. FrankAnchor14:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Assertions of meeting GNG were rebutted and/or plainly incorrect (e.g. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line and For example, the Critic here, establish GNG are obviously problematic since all ODT articles are considered only one source, which is not sufficient for the relevant guideline, and The Critic, in addition to also only being one source, fails independence per the cited consensus at RSP). These !votes should have been heavily down-weighted. The argument The rationale for deletion being presented is that, while this is a subject of multiple pieces of significant, independent, published coverage of presumed reliability assumes either that the ODT sources are sufficient (they are not, as they don't count as "multiple") or that the One News source counts toward GNG (no: as noted in the discussion, there is no coverage of NORML, only a namedrop and mentions of Gray), and anyway fails to actually rebut the NORG requirement for non-local SIRS. The random drive-by comment on AUD was worthless as it falsely asserts coverage in national sources and argues the "regional" definition in AUD includes basically any newspaper extending past city limits, despite the requirement in BRANCH actually being "coverage beyond the local area" rather than "coverage in a newspaper designated 'regional'". JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseOverturn (to “no consensus”) (uninvolved) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply] Advise User:Dclemens1971 to read advice at WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination statement was weak, it did not make a case for deletion, and this routinely makes for a trainwreck of an AfD. WP:BRANCH, mentioned a few times at the AfD and here, is not a reason for deletion but for a merge and redirect, and as this was not couched in the nomination, a relist is not appropriate. While investigating, I noted that User:Jake Wartenberg has little experience at AfD, according to AfDstats. They should get some more experience at AfD before closing contested AfDs, but this does not amount to a reason to not endorse. Arguably, the discussion could have been closed as “no consensus”, but “delete” could not have been justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A renomination should not be allowed for at least two months, taking the result as “no consensus”, or sox months per WP:RENOM, to allow sufficient reflection on why this AfD failed.
Hi there. @SmokeyJoe. I am familiar with RENOM; I was not the nominator and have no plans to renominate it. I raised my concern directly to the closer because the decision did not seem to align with the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter that the nomination statement was weak when !voters provided strong rationales? BRANCH also doesn't mandate merging/redirecting--it explicitly says this is an option in some cases, not all. In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. [...] Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. [...] Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization. The "should" in "should normally be merged" is in reference to those subchapters that do qualify as "some cases", it doesn't mean merging is appropriate in every case--otherwise the preceding and succeeding bullets wouldn't make sense. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“the nomination statement was weak” is intended as advice to the nominator for next time, and to other nominators. It doesn’t matter per se, it just tends to produce train wrecks. User:Carrite, for example, even arriving late in the discussion, gives a hard rebuttal to the weak nomination. Weak nominations make for a non-flowing poorly structure discussion for the next arriving participant, and according they tend to attract random drive-by comments that further derail the discussion from finding consensus.
Re BRANCH. Did I say “mandate”? I would say that it is a reason to merge, unless there are better reasons to not merge, and when that happens, those reasons are the reason to delete or redirect, and mentioning BRANCH was probably unhelpful. These things weren’t thrashed out in the AfD, were they?
Dclemens pushed the BRANCH argument, but nowhere do I see it being used alongside a reason to not merge.
Maybe it should have been a no consensus close, yes maybe it should, but it couldn’t have been a “delete”. The case for deletion was not made. This being a review forum, it is appropriate to look for reasons for the discussion failing to find consensus. As I’ve seen in made cases brought to DRV, the root cause of the failure of the discussion was the weak nomination. My opinion on what the outcome should be is not appropriate to voice at DRV, just a review of the AfD and its close. The best way forward is a RENOM. A relist means the trainwreck stays at the top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse pretty much per SmokeyJoe. I'd have probably closed as NC or relist, but keep was within discretion and I don't believe delete was. Redirect or merge might be the best outcome here but A) it wasn't really discussed much and B) it's not clear what the target would be. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would have closed as no consensus or relisted (and perhaps providing some of the reasoning in the close would have helped as well). That said, I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the strengths of the arguments. Malinaccier (talk)01:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As others here said, a N/C would have been acceptable as well, with the only practical difference between the two being the expected duration before renomination. The distinction isn't worth spending time on. Owen×☎18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
