Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gabwp (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 21 December 2021 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sport Club São Sebastião.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 20 December 22 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club São Sebastião

Sport Club São Sebastião (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notoriety of the club is not established in the source. Perfektsionist (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt Motors

Revolt Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV and WP:SIGCOV and in the current form is full of puffery; WP:PUFF; which we can easily deduce by looking at these texts - 1:"The Revolt bikes were the first electric motorcycles to find mass appeal in India", 2: "The fan base of the company are known as Revolters.", 3: "While Revolt is so far the only electric motorcycle brand to have gained traction in India". Also, we should consider this point: Revolt Motors is a sub-entity of RattanIndia, the wiki of which has been recently deleted (via AfD) because of the possible involvement of senior management staff in the creation and updation of the Wikipedia pages; WP:COI/WP:UPE. Overall, it seems to be a part of a coordinated effort by the same group/team. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi Hatchens
In future, could I tentatively suggest that it might be an idea to engage in a little bit of background research before casting aspersions such as '...overall, it seems to be a part of a coordinated effort by the same group/team.?'
I've been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time. If you look at my extensive edit history, it is pretty obvious that I have nothing to do with RattanIndia, I am not Indian, and indeed, I've never even been to the country. I didn't know anything about RattanIndia until they bought a stake in Revolt Motors earlier this year.
If you did a bit of digging, you'd notice I have created three Wiki articles within the past month: Revolt Motors, Super Soco, Vmoto. What do they have in common?
All three are electric motorcycle companies... which, not coincidently, happens to be one of my chief areas of interest.
Please note, that I have no problem with someone marking a page that I create as 'nominated for deletion'. It is part of the process.
But if you are going to cast aspersions about the motives of editors, it would be polite to first do a little bit of homework, and at least check if the accusations might hold any water. Inchiquin (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... an 'old company'? It looks like you haven't done your homework, Nomadicghumakkad. The company was founded in 2017. Inchiquin (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

I don't think it is particualrly difficult to find in-depth articles on Revolt Motors, however, for the benefit of the time-poor, here is a feature article on the company from a credible website: "Revolt Motors RV 400: All you need to know" by Siddharth Chauhan, published on Tech Radar on 18 June, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inchiquin: Please don't add random headers like this, it breaks the AfD log page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)
Sorry about that, I didn't realise.Inchiquin (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Answering to creator's question - "If you did a bit of digging, you'd notice I have created three Wiki articles within the past month: Revolt Motors, Super Soco, Vmoto. What do they have in common?" - all three are connected; Revolt Motors sells re-badged Super Soco electric bikes in India and Vmoto is the primary distributor of same Super Soco electric bikes in Australia. I recommend, Kindly declare WP:COI at your user page. -Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Hatchens, the allegations you are throwing around are unfounded. I do find it curious that you have not mentioned Super Soco in your comment above. I don't know if you are aware of this, but Super Soco and Vmoto are currently in competition with one another. Need I comment further?
Please note you have previously alleged that I was paid by RattanIndia, you are now suggesting that I am paid by Vmoto or Super Soco. I have created these articles partly because they are significant organisations, but mostly because I am interested in electric motorcycles. Please note that AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.
Yes, I do like Super Soco bikes, that is the 'common thread' as to why I created these articles. However, I don't just like Super Soco bikes. I also like those of Fonzi Electric and Stealth, as well as European companies such as the Spanish electric motorcycle company Silence, and innovative e-bike companies, such as the French start-up Teebike. Unfortunately, these organisations are not significant enough to warrant articles on Wikipedia, which is why I have focused my efforts on Super Soco, Revolt and Vmoto.
I might note that both the articles on Super Soco and Revolt Motors have sections which discuss the main competitors, such as Ola Electric, Askoll, and Niu Technologies, including links to the pages. The articles are obviously not written as puff pieces, and I think most viewers of the pages agree.
Your comment about WP:COI was not posted in good faith, as you are well aware. Inchiquin (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting your edits. Now, how come - "Super Soco and Vmoto are currently in competition with one another"? - so who added this partnership statement https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vmoto&diff=1059540130&oldid=1059520623 at Vmoto's page? Take your time to think and then comment. In the meanwhile, let me help you out further; Proof of Super Soco and Vmoto collaboration/partnership - ; https://www.motoroids.com/news/could-this-turn-out-to-be-revolts-next-electric-motorcycle/ and Proof of Revolt Motors selling re-badged Super Soco electric bikes in India; https://www.motorbeam.com/revolt-rv-400-clone-is-super-soco-chinese-bike/. Also, your involvement at RattanIndia AfD has been duly noted. You're requested to declare WP:COI (voluntarily) at your user page or the talk pages of Revolt Motors, Super Soco, and Vmoto. -Hatchens (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Hatchens.
To begin with, I feel obliged to point out that it is poor practice to quote edits, throwing them around in arguments as if to imply that they are evidence of the viewpoint of an editor.
They are no such thing. Edits on Wikipedia always should be referenced, and thus an edit should be reflective of the views of the sources, not the editor.
Secondly, I would suggest you need to be very cautious about how you interpret sources you find on the internet in relation to Super Soco. The relationship between Vmoto and Super Soco is extremely confusing, and most writers don't understand it. The relationship between Revolt Motors and Vmoto/Super Soco is even more cryptic.
For this reason, I am quite sceptical about your claims about there being a relationship between Revolt Motors and Vmoto/Super Soco. I don't doubt that there are sources that claim there is a relationship between the companies, but whether the writers of the pieces (such as the one you quoted above) are right or not, is another matter. Personally, I have never come across any solid evidence of a relationship between Super Soco and Revolt, although it is hard to ignore the similarity of the look of the Super Soco/Revolt bikes, hence the speculation you find on various websites, as noted above.
These companies are very hard to understand. I refer you to my comments on the Vmoto page of 7/12/21.
...Alright, allow me a minute or two, and I'll explain the thought processes underlying the creation of this article, and this should shed some light onto the question of meeting the criteria of notability.
A few weeks ago I created the article on Super Soco, a popular brand of electric motorcycle. At the corporate level, the Super Soco brand is controlled by a number entities with a somewhat Delphic relationship, which is not particularly easy to untangle. So when I booted the article on Super Soco, I opted to focus on the brand, side-stepping the thorny question of which group was in control of the brand.
After creating the Super Soco article, I started to unpick the details, and I realised that the approach that I took on the page was probably wrong...
So, yes... in some regards you are right. What I stated in my previous post didn't marry with many of my edits in the post. That's because I didn't fully understand the company structure when I first posted the 'Super Soco' article, and I still don't entirely understand what is going on. (While I'm on the topic, I might note that the comment you quoted ' Vmoto Soco also became the exclusive manufacturer of the Super Soco motorcycle range' was taken from the website that is referenced directly after the comment. It isn't my opinion, and thus I am not contradicting myself. That is the point of sources on Wikipedia.)
By the way let me show you something that seems rather important in relation to your line of argument, though you don't seem to be aware of.
It is a press release by Super Soco on the 1st of December:
SHANGHAI, Dec. 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The world's largest motorcycle trade expo EICMA, ended on November 28 in Milan, Italy. During the event, SUPERSOCO, a world-renowned and recognized electric motorcycle brand, discovered that a company exhibited, without permission, many of SUPERSOCO's best-selling models in violation of its exclusive appearance patents and intellectual property rights, such as CPX/TC MAX/CU/VS1, and utilized the SUPERSOCO brand and some of its models for media communications. | see article
So, what do you think is going on there?. That doesn't sound very chummy. Now, I should note that Vmoto were at that event - as noted in the article of the same name- so it is pretty clear that the statement was directed at Vmoto.
Which illustrates that, what was stated in my post above is correct: Vmoto and Super Soco are competitors. The notion that you are suggesting, that these companies are in some kind of parent-child relationship, is not factually accurate. They are not subsidiaries, on the contrary, they seem to be engaged in an ugly turf-war.
I might note also, all the evidence indicates that Revolt Motors and Vmoto are likewise independent companies that are competitors, Revolt Motors is not a subsidiary of either Super Soco or Vmoto, as you seem to suggest.
In summary, your arguments around WP:COI don't hold up. The three companies are independent entities, they are not subsidiaries of each other, as you keep suggesting, and writing about the three companies is not a conflict of interest, no more than so than an editor who happens to write about two or more motorcycle or car companies.
In future, I would suggest you need to be very careful about evaluating source material. I don't understand these companies entirely, and you don't either, so please don't make allegations that an editor has got a conflict of interest etc, etc if you haven't got a good grasp of a complicated subject. Inchiquin (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hold the horses and wait for others' assessment. -Hatchens (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They're either a couple of lines with no in-depth information or regurgitated announcements. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the wall of text isn’t helpful neither does it do any good, to roughly paraphrase one of Phil Bridger quotes, if you need that many words to prove something is notable then it is probably indicative of the inverse. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alembic Group

Alembic Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chumpih., the page you linked is an essay of a user talk page and not of the official Wiki guidelines. But I do understand that three may be sufficient for some, however, it depends on the quality of the sources. For example, TOI is a questionable source in terms of reliability, so an extra one may be more suitable. The Forbes and Business-Standard written by staff writers are good sources though, since those types of articles also appear in print. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Multi7001. From here you can see that WP:THREE is not exactly an obscure standard, but you're absolutely right about the other points. Is there superior threshold or mechanism you can cite or recommend?
And re. Times of India, the consensus is that it's at its worst when pro-government bias takes over. In this case of reporting on a business group, why would you think that ToI's bias or unreliability would apply? Chumpih. (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference about TOI was just a broad example. More reliable sources would be better in this case, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's a reasonable stance. Chumpih. (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it is probably worth bearing in mind the difference between WP:NOTE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. For sure, a bigger number of more reliable sources is better, but here in AfD it seems that we deal with what we're handed. The citations needed to support statements within an article (per WP:PRIMARY and so on.) may not all be of the quality required to satisfy WP:NOTE. (WP:MEDRS etc. notwithstanding.) So I suspect we can tolerate a number of insignificant or less-reliable sources providing there are sufficient good ones to satisfy WP:GNG.
Genuinely, is there a better threshold than WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete [1] It's not independent news with missing author name. [2] This is the self published. [3] there is no analysis and news is given by PR agency with comments of spokesperson of the company. [4] It is just a profile link. [5] TOI is not considered much reliable also it is based on announmenet. [6] Again a directory link. [7] unreliable profile source. [8] clear promo, self published news. [9] not reliable again and based on announment with no analysis. Even the content is pure junk. Behind the moors (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Behind the moors: would [10] be acceptable as a source? It's from the No.1 newspaper in India, apparently. If it is acceptable, perhaps find a few more can be found. It would appear that 'Business-standard' is permissible. Given that, is [11] significant and reliable, etc.? Frankly, there's a big likelihood that there's some WP:GNG sources out there because it's WP:LISTED. Chumpih. (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources you shared are not in-depth or independent about the company it is about the event. We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event. Behind the moors (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors: According to WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So when you say We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event, who are we and what is the documented requirement to be satisfied? And re. independence, the two sources are national newspapers; they're neither advertising, press releases autobiography nor the company's own website. Chumpih. (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer WP:ORG for organisation not WP:GNG. Just having a coverage in reliable/national paper doesn't mean they are independent. Read them, there is no analysis of journalist of them, only the comments of spokesperson. Behind the moors (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both guidelines were read. And upon reading these, it would be clear to see that "[ WP:ORG ], generally, follow the general notability guidelines". The articles are independent of Alembic, indeed one is positively anti-Alembic, so which "spokesperson" are you referring to? The coverage is significant per definition. Where is this requirement for "analysis of journalist" coming from ? For the avoidance of doubt, these are not rhetorical questions. And once again, Alembic Group is WP:LISTED and over 100 years old, so it would be almost certain to be notable. Here's the Financial Times. Chumpih. (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Move

Bald Move (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This podcasting company does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH or even WP:GNG. The current references are all primary. I searched on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com using a combination of search parameters such as "Bald Move", "Podcast", "Podcasting", "Peter Street", "Jim Jones", and "Ron Hubbard". I found some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the company on Google and Google News, but they were all focused on the podcasts produced by the company rather than the company itself. The company does not WP:INHERIT notability from its shows, but even if it did I'm not entirely sure the shows are notable. Anne drew Andrew and Drew removed the WP:PROD tag with the comment that "I found a number of good sources on Google News", but neglected to add any references to the article. I also asked them to present sources on the talk page a few days ago, but I have yet to receive a response so I decided to take it to WP:AFD. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Keep because it's an influential podcast network that's had a decent amount of media coverage.[1][2][3][4][5][6] I don't like the argument that it's the individual podcasts that received coverage and therefore the company behind them isn't notable. The whole business model is that they create podcasts about whatever show is currently topical. It's like saying you can't establish notability for a TV show based on the notability of each of its seasons. – Anne drew 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scribner, Herb (24 January 2020). "The debate over 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' is an example of the culture war". Deseret News.
  2. ^ "Here Are Our Favorite Westworld Podcasts". Lifehacker.
  3. ^ "What's the Buzz: Mighty Ducks, Life on Mars? and More!". 25YL. 7 December 2019.
  4. ^ Mackrell, Daniel (16 April 2019). "The best Game Of Thrones podcasts to listen to during season 8". Metro.
  5. ^ Scribner, Herb (12 February 2020). "Will fans ever turn on the Marvel Cinematic Universe? An inside look at toxic fandom". Deseret News.
  6. ^ "Foundation S1E6: "Death and the Maiden"". 25YL. 22 October 2021.
  • Comment in regards to Anne drew Andrew and Drew and Mommmyy arguments to keep. I don't believe the comparison is a fair one. TV series have different seasons and so do podcasts. I'm not claiming a podcast is non-notable even though individual seasons have received coverage in reliable sources. I'm claiming a company that produces podcasts is non-notable. I would argue that a company producing TV series can be non-notable while some of the shows they produce are notable (i.e. the shows received significant coverage without any mention or just passing mentions of the company). It's worth noting that the first sentence of WP:NCORP states "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service." which clearly differentiates between the company and its products. There is also a section of NCORP called WP:INHERITORG which states that "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable" as opposed to significant coverage received by the products produced by the organization or corporation. Perhaps a separate Wikipedia page is appropriate for one of the podcasts rather than the company. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KATV (Alaska)

KATV (Alaska) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBROADCAST; just one sentence, just one source. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a strange bird page, and the lack of sourcing on the topic does not help. (A local newspaper is sorely needed!) I improved KSA-TV, a related topic, and I think there is a notability case here for one reason: KA-TV (as it was sometimes written) was the first television station of any kind in Alaska, before broadcast stations were established in larger cities like Anchorage or Fairbanks. [12] Delays in building the first station in Anchorage meant that Ketchikan had TV a month before that city. Citations have been added. I lean keep on the "first in Alaska" claim. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article creator has unilaterally redirected this article (and KSA-TV, which is not up for deletion) to the list of television stations in Alaska — notwithstanding that their only mention in that list contains none of the sources that had been in the article, and incorrectly implies they were over-the-air stations. Especially for this article (as this removed the AfD tag), this seems out of process… IMO, I'd have gone for a weak keep given its place in Alaska television history (and based solely on Sammi Brie's expansion — the "one sentence, one source" version, I would have gone for deletion), but under the circumstances perhaps we should ship it to draft space for now? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kono (character)

Kono (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources found. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only source currently being used in the article is a single issue of a comic book, and searching for actual information in reliable sources turns up nothing on this character. Even unreliable fan sources like fan wikis barely have anything on this particular character. I've said in the past that character list articles are not an automatic catch-all to shove unsourced material that is inappropriate to be kept on the encyclopedia, and this extremely minor character with zero information sourced to reliable sources is a prime example of one that should be deleted outright. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt to get consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Project Managers

International Association of Project Managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private training provider. Paid editing. Insignificant number of certification holders compared to Project Management Institute and PRINCE2. The German version of this page was deleted a few days ago as well: [13]. Not to be confused with the better known "International Project Management Association" (IPMA). Ilumeo (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IAPM does not organise private trainings. Nobody paid me to write this article. Compared to PMI, every PM organisation has few members... Just to clarify. In my opinion, the article is justified. Although it is a relatively small organisation, it still has members worldwide (at least according to its own data) and several sub-organisations.[1][2] If the relevance of each article is determined by the large ones, we can also close wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the advertising part because I am biased. Just an info to the person processing the deletion, that seems to be important here: Ilumeo and his crew are related to IPMA’s German sub-organisation GPM. A PM organisations which has a grudge against the IAPM and accordingly against this article. Why do I say this? I am aware that my comments are biased in a certain way. For the others, it should also be known. GilbertPotter (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)— GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
I am only biased by the idea of holding wikipedia free from self-promoting articles with insufficient external reception and from people who confuse an encyclopedia with Linkedin. Ilumeo (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Illumeo's arguments seem irrelevant to me. I have just deleted an irrelavent and inaccurate part from the article that Illumeo inserted there. It seems to me that he inserted it on purpose to support his otherwise unsubstantiated arguments. As far as I can see, the article is not advertising, but if the general consensus is that it is advertising, then the last part about "Special features of IAPM" can be shortened, and then it should be fine in my opinion.FreakyFridolin (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: While I agree that the article was not the best to be accepted (i.e. it includes mostly primary sources and no article links to it), I'd say that it still should be kept, as it has acceptable sourcing and is neutral in most parts. Luxtay the IInd (talke to mee) 13:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It just about has enough independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, primary sources are not a valid evidence of the encyclopedic relevance of an organization. The secondary sources are mostly blog posts that definitely cannot be used as evidence of a high level of awareness. Overall, the external reception is not sufficient as it was mentioned here as well. If the majority of the article advertises certificates that can be purchased, I don't find that really neutral either. Ilumeo (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing in the article relies a lot on primary sources. The ones that are not are not reliable sources for establishing notability. The CIO article is probably the best of the lot and its just a list of certifications. Top 13? Why 13? Probably because they are all of the certifications. -- Whpq (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://iapmnigeria.com
  2. ^ https://www.iapmindonesia.net

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: 1. Of course, the article uses many primary sources and comparatively few secondary sources. However, the secondary sources are all reputable, even if they are mainly in the project management field.2. Especially small organisations have few or no sources outside the field in which they are active and have, in my opinion, a right to be in Wikipedia. 3. I went back to look for mentions and came across some that i would (at least partially) include after the deletion discussion is finished. 3.1 The computer magazine Heise reports about IAPM as the first organisation in the agile field without recertification.Click3.2 Jacobs University Bremen has a new professor and calls him an expert because he is certified by the IAPM. Click3.3 BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg promotes the IAPM certificate.Click 3.4 For doctoral students at the University of Stuttgart, the IAPM's project management methods are part of the course which "belongs to the interdisciplinary courses for teaching interdisciplinary key qualifications according to §5 Para. 4 No. 2 PromO 2016".Click 1Click 2Click 3Click 43.5 Postdocs of the Otto von Guericke Graduate Academy who are part of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg are trained by a trainer certified by the IAPM. This is also openly communicated by the university. Click3.6 The IAPM Indonesia Network has 3290 subscribers on Youtube and 1400-10000 views on each video. Click3.7 The IHK AKADEMIE TRAUNSTEIN (a state commissioned organisation for training and education) and the district of Traustein (Germany) advertise that a certificate can be obtained from the IAPM after their training.Click3.8 Indeeds articles about The IAPM Click GilbertPotter (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to remember: GilbertPotter is a WP:SPA, the creator of this page that is the subject of this XfD and therefore has no WP:NPOV. These sources are just another desperate attempt to ascribe more relevance to the article than it has. Much of the page that is the subject of this XfD also seems exaggerated in terms of marketing. E.g. there it says that "IAPM's methods were recognized by the Procurement Office of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior". That sounds reputable at first glance... However, there was no official letter of recognition or a certificate by the Ministry. Instead, IAPM once was mentioned at the edge of a single job add in 2018.[1] With the right marketing, it looks like more. Ilumeo (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ilumeo I have the feeling that you don't want to contribute anything productive. You make no effort to read anything in the article in question or to read the comments of others in this deletion discussion. On my page, I have clearly noted WP:COI, if you would bother, you would know that and not have to write it. This has already been pointed out by The Grid in this deletion discussion. If you think something is marketing, you are free to edit it (but please on a correct and researched basis, not like last time). By the way, your "source" is not the one I linked to - it's Click which links here Click. Under this link you will also find the PDF document with the invitation to tender. There you will also find the sentence (in German) "In the performance of the advisory service, the respective current and recognised standards and methods, in particular those of the federal government, are to be implemented. These include, among others: [...]IAPM (International Association of Project Managers)[...]" This is from the first invitation to tender, I will refrain from quoting the other two. Everything can be found under the sources.GilbertPotter (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your commitment in all honor, I understand it's about making money. A page in Wikipedia would lead to greater awareness and thus more sales. The goal is certainly that a lot of people acquire a certificate that would be legitimized by Wikipedia. However, the IAPM certificates are not yet well known to justify an encyclopedic relevance. Around 5,000 certificates have only been issued worldwide so far. If you go to an interview, the recruiters will certainly not know about these certificates. There are also numerous other providers of this very insignificant size. So where is the added value? I could create a nice-looking layout and then print it out as a certificate, that would be just as relevant. Ilumeo (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what you're trying to do all the time with these off-the-cuff assumptions. Apart from that, you're saying all the wrong things again. Do you want to emphasise that you have a personal vendetta here (5000 is just another wrong number)? I have already given other sources above, some of which report on the IAPM independently of the topic of project management, which in my opinion indicates relevance. Besides, this is not just about the certificates issued. There are just shy of 40,000 people in the IAPM network.GilbertPotter (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page that is the subject of this XfD has a strong focus on certificates. Therefore, this should also be addressed in the deletion discussion. You constantly assume things here about my background, whereas I only want to keep the quality in Wikipedia high. You have to be able to deal with critical voices without feeling personally attacked. To be precise, 5,572 certificates were issued, not 5,000 (you are right). But do these 572 additional certificates make the organization more relevant? No. I have also seen the information on 40,000 network members, but don't find it very meaningful. What is that supposed to be? Partly this includes the followers in social networks. Is that the sum of it then? If so, then it is no reliable data. E.g. if one person likes the IAPM on three social networks, that's still only one person, not three people. --Ilumeo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ilumeo, that's very much assuming bad faith. Any mention of possible COI has been exhausted here. I would suggest to drop it for the sake of continuing to have any form of productive discussion about this AfD. Focus on the content and not the contributor. – The Grid (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the content: The content of the article does not go into the underlying project management model ("PM Guide"). In terms of content, what makes IAPM's PM model different or better than PRINCE2 and the other known PM models? Of all the possible content, this would be the most relevant one here. A critical examination of the corresponding model is also missing in the article. What is good, what is perhaps not so good. Besides the primary sources, are there any other sources that deal with the content of IAPM's PM Guide? Unfortunately, I can't find very much external reception here. --Ilumeo (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/iapm-vom-bund-anerkannt-1015554210
I don't think the article is about any model or guide but about the organization itself, your comment is not relevant in my opinion. Drawing comparisons with another organization within the article is not relevant to this article in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who get certified by this company should also know what they get certified in, no? --Ilumeo (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decide what you want. Above you wrote that there is too much advertising and here you suddenly write that not enough is written about the certification and what belongs to it. You change your argumentation as it suits you, no matter what you have said before. If people want to know precisely what the certification is about, they should go to the IAPM website. In my opinion, what you want is marketing, and that's not what wikipedia is for.GilbertPotter (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you didn't understand me correctly. Too much is written about the certificates and too little is written about the underlying model. In my opinion, a high-quality article first describes the content of a model in detail and then very briefly mentions that there is also the possibility of certification. At least that's my opinion (and a tip for writing good articles in general). However, in this case, there is not enough external reception to properly research this information and present it here. --Ilumeo (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I took time to read the mostly primary sources and the third party mentions all of which confirm that yes, it exists. However I cannot see anything about how IAPM contributes to the profession in the way that notable project management organisations such as PMI, APM, IPMA, Axelos (the PRINCE2 people) do. They just issues certificates and I have mostly concluded that this is a borderline diploma mill. I will also add (and feel free to dismiss this as WP:OR because it is purely personal opinion) that in the last 20 years of my career, during which I have employed well over 100 project managers and worked with many many more, I have never once seen anyone with an IAPM qualification. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three delete posts since you re-listed five days ago. Does that mean we now have enough to declare there is consensus? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written like an extremely run of the mill brochure for the company. Which makes sense because 99% of it is based on primary references that literally serve that purpose. Unfortunately what's left that isn't primary doesn't seem to be any better either. Really the way the remaining none primary references are written I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't paid pieces or at least churnalism. Even if they aren't though, what they write about clearly goes against the of the notability guidelines for companies. The fact that Sharon Florentine from CIO, whoever she and they are, thinks this company has one of the top 13 project management certifications for 2020 is meaningless. We don't base the notability of a company on the word of some rando in a churnalism blog post and there's nothing else here that we can base it on. So there isn't a justifiable reason to keep the article. Also the fact that good faithed edits by established editors are repeatedly being removed from the article by COI editors is a major issue. There's zero point in having an article about this company if their paid editors are going to try and WP:OWN it by not allowing people without COI issues make good faith edits to it. Screw that. There's an established process for adding content to articles that people with COI issues should go through to do so and how it's happening in this article isn't it. Going by their defensive debate tactics in this AfD I doubt they would be willing to do things in the proper way. Nor should we encourage them or COI editors by keeping the article and allowing them to camp in it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:GilbertPotter, who has declared a conflict of interest in this article ([14]) and has passionately defended it against deletion, has been going agains the deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) by inappropriately canvassing (specifically spamming) six uninvolved editors (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting (diff1, diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 edit6. However, I am inclined to assume good faith due to a possible unfamiliarity with Wikipedia polices as a new editor. I also note that none of the six users canvassed has participated in this debate. I did think it should go on record though. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). Ineligible for soft deletion due to past declined PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Film Music Society

The Film Music Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and unreferenced. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Bad & Ugly

Good Bad & Ugly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable reviews. The sources in the article offer little content to write an article (can only write the "Production" section and not the "Soundtrack" and "Release" sections). All of the sources in article are fairly short.

  • 1. Source 1 - Simply says the film is a thriller (film mentioned twice)
  • 2. Source 2 - Article about one of the actors in the film (contains information about the films the actor is shooting for) / Half of the article about another film called Karma Yodha. (film mentioned thrice)
  • 3. Source 3 - Article about one of the actors in the film (Last paragraph in article is about three different films) (This film mentioned once)
  • 4. Source 4 - Simply says the film is about harthal (film mentioned once) . Lists out the cast and crew. (Ex: Cinematographer is ... Music by ...)
  • 5. Source 5 - Passing mention (film mentioned once)
  • 6. Source 6 - Malayalam song database

Other sources found include this one (although it is a passing mention) and this one (good long source, although it may not be reliable). The lack of reliable reviews make writing an article difficult since none of the reliable articles are long.

Based on the sources, one can only write an article with the cast and crew listed and say the film is a "harthal thriller". No other information can be added. DareshMohan (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly your overview of the sources includes incorrect and/or misleading information (assuming good faith, I would not say it's intentional). Too many "Simply"'s there, but just looking at the very first source from Sify, it doesn't "simply" say the film is a thriller nor does it mention it twice as you suggest above - the entire article (which might not be too long) is about the film! It gives information about the wrapping of the shooting, where it took place, who it was directed by and who it stars, credits to members of the crew, and above all, the film's story is presented in a separate paragraph. This is as good a source as any one could look for. You might have just used a simple search function for the title which is not a way to confirm a source is relevant. The same is true, for that matter, of the third source by The Times of India, it gives a lot of information on the film even though it's about the actor. All in all, I believe it is a notable film based on the sources. And even if it was just a passing mention, I wouldn't ignore it - non-notable films do not get this many passing mentions. Shahid • Talk2me 16:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Health

Carbon Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being one of the many firms distributing Covid test kits fails NOTNEWS & does not imply notability , and the other references do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few good reliable sources, such as Wired UK and the CBS affiliate. However, many of the sources cited are not reliable. A new page should be able to demonstrate notability with only a couple of reliable sources. At this moment, it is only a weak keep. Multi7001 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Driver of the Day

Driver of the Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage of this golrified popularity contest is almost completley WP:ROUTINE and almost completley WP:PRIMARY. I therefore fail to see how this can pass WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer-Barrow House

Sawyer-Barrow House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing anything notable about this house. It exists and is old, but has no historic designation and I am not finding any true "in-depth" coverage. It appears that the builder/architect might be more notable that this particular house. MB 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most (probably all) of the sources attributed to Jack Barrow aren't attributed correctly. The book Architecture of the Western Reserve 1800-1900, for example, is by Richard N. Campen. - Eureka Lott 18:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was adding the references incorrectly. I mistakenly thought the first and last names were required to track who was adding the reference. I will fix them. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The house does have a historic designation which was awarded to it in in 1968 by the Heritage Home Committee of the Lake County Historical Society.[1] I will upload a photo of the letter received 08/19/21968 as a reference. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only a local designation does not suggest there should be significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. MB 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lake County Historical Society". lakehistorycenter.pastperfectonline.com. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  • Comment It was mentioned that a house can't be notable solely based on who the builder/architect might have been. I'd like to point out that of the 4 publications I've cited as references only one is devoted to the Builder. Two of the others recount the history of the City of Mentor, Ohio where it resides and the other is a work on northern Ohio Architecture. Unfortunately none of these sources are available online and copyright restrictions prevent me from uploading images of them myself. Is it possible maybe to share the information with a Wikipedia administrator outside of Wikipedia? Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Do any of these offline sources more than mention the house in a sentence here or there, or in a list or photo. Was the house actually written about? MB 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 4 publications I mentioned all have photographs of the house. In the Book on Johnathan Goldsmith the house has its own page with related text. The book "Mentor: First 200 Years" is an 11x8 inch hard bound 193 page work completed by the City of Mentor 20 years ago by local historians without my involvement. In it the house is displayed twice with photos and a couple paragraphs of text. Once as it relates to the early settlers from around 1820 and again for its role as one of the large estates that populated this region in the early 1900's. There is another magazine publication called "Country Homes" that was published in 1920's that has 10 photo's and 4 pages of text on the history of the house that go with them. However, I was given the pages without the rest of the magazine so I have no date or author's name. Which is why I've been reluctant to reference it in Wikipedia until I can do more research to find the complete source. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There multiple sources locaed in the article and a simple search shows its designated an historical site in 1968. Its a pretty good article and I see zero grounds for an adf on this article. Super (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you evaluated whether any of the sources provide in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG? The historic designation in 1968 is not sourced in the article, and in any event was given by a county historical society. That is of highly local nature and does not automatically confer notability. MB 04:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any coverage specifically on the house - the best two sources would be the local paper which I can't access talking about how the house was moved, but those can't save it on its own and I don't think a "Country Homes"-type magazine would necessarily convey notability. It simply appears this is a historic albeit non-notable house. If the architect has a page, it may be worth listing a small amount of the information there. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. as with other historic house. We aren ot part of the Federal or State systems, and that is not a requirmeent for inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Being recognized on a national or state historic registry means there is a presumption of meeting GNG. There is no such presumpton with local historic designations; GNG must be met by finding in-depth coverage in multiple independent RS. MB 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Explicit analysis of whether the sources available do or do not meet the GNG would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting bit of local history, but I can't find any sources to back it up. It's not on the NRHP or any State list, I don't think it's worth including here. Could be a sub-section about the master builder, but he doesn't have an article either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If its an interesting bit of local history, then I feel it should be kept. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER after all. If there is verifiable information here that would be better somewhere else in the encyclopedia as suggested above, then I feel that article should be created and the information merged there prior to this article being deleted. Otherwise, the information would be lost. NemesisAT (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not convinced that this specific house merits inclusion on Wikipedia at this time. Most of the sourcing discusses the architect, Mr. Sawyer, or general local news about construction and the house in modern times (i.e. a gas station being put onsite, etc). Most of the sources are also by one journalist and a lot of the house details in the article are unsourced original research. I do think that there should be a Wikipedia article about the architect, but, I am not convinced (even with my attempts at newspaper.com and other sources) that the house itself merits a full article. Missvain (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's notable as a beautiful historic building, although perhaps it should be reshaped into an article about the master-builder who built it as the sources are more focussed on him than the house. 1. The house itself was notable enough to be included in this book 2. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as similar other buildings of Goldsmith are on the national registries so while this one is not so "noted" it is notable as is the architect/builder. Maybe a page for him and all his surviving buildings is the best, but the evolution to that doesn't come by first deleting articles and the source information. That "Most of the sources are also by one journalist" is not true: JBarrow51 made a mistake in putting his own name on the sources he intended to cite, as he explained above. Like me, he's a new editor and makes mistakes. I see the welcoming committee here didn't waste even two weeks before they AfD'd one of his first articles. I corrected all but 3 of the "JBarrow" sourcings: two are to newspapers (Painsville Telegraph and Mentor Monitor) which I don't have access to, and the third just links to wkrs.org main page and not a specific page on the site that supports anything in the article. Ohio History Center in Columbus has the 1961 issues of the Mentor Monitor: if you want to save this page, I'd hoof it over there and get the WP:SIGCOV people want to see.https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84028225/holdings/ BBQboffin (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The negative assessment of the sources linked to by BobFromBrockley has remained uncontested. Sandstein 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik)

Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely unchanged since its creation in 2009. Reads like a propaganda piece and should be deleted. Was considering G11, but this felt safer. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. People disagree about the quality of the sources, including the newly-added ones. Sandstein 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Renaissance Faire

Alabama Renaissance Faire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It really depends on how someone views local sources. To me, adequate would be substantial coverage out of the general area. The sources that you added are from Florence, Alabama where the fair is at or are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Despite my due diligence, I cannot find broader significant coverage outside of some promotional/advert stuff in local publications or passing mentions. Not enough to convince me this faire is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Missvain (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Granted, they are positive and not critical, but they do contain some substantive information, but they don’t strike me as particularly promotional for coverage of a local festival.–Chaser (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge to Florence, Alabama#Festivals, where it is already briefly covered. As stated a couple times above, the sources are largely routine or promotional coverage, which does not really meet the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. However, it is already covered as one of the events on the main article on Florence - redirecting there, at the very least, makes sense, and some of the sources can probably be merged over there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets my reading of WP:GNG. Sources are plentiful and fine, and spread between TV, Magazines, and Newspapers. There is a substantial amount of coverage, as indicated by ten plus pages of google hits. It's also been around for 36 years, so there's that. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Bene: I have added additional wider-coverage references, partially re-written the article, and expanded it by 35%. There are a lot more untapped references and info out there. The article needs some more editing work and added content, not deletion. Was BEFORE even considered here? Wondering, GenQuest "scribble" 15:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GenQuest I don't appreciate WP:BEFORE being mentioned. My nomination said that I searched for references. Please AGF. On top of it, I am a long-time AfD contributor and most of my nominations have a delete consensus. I also see that Missvain had issues finding coverage as well. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The recent addition of newer sourcing has helped make it credible.— Maile (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sources that have been and have been added to the article demonstrating passing WP:GNG. Claiming this is of only "local" interest is not only not accurate, but the term "local" is so ambiguous. Local to just the town near the faire? To the counties adjacent to it? The entire state? In the latter's case, it's not just "local." Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I looked at this again to see if I was going to revise my delete vote...and I can't see any reason to. As far as the RS articles go, there are two links to local TV channels, there is a dead link to "rocketcitymoms.com"...the rest are general articles discussing festivals where it is just mentioned, (including on a list of 48 festivals to see in Alabama).. and links to its own website and some renfair page. There is no substantive independent RS substantiating this as being notable beyond the local level, and in fact, not even a lot of local material either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_21&oldid=1061332023"