Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Shortcut

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Purge page cache watch

General

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. There is no doubt that some of the sources are trivial mentions or otherwise fail to provide "significant coverage" of the topic. However, many of the profferred sources remain unchallenged, and there is divergent opinion on some sources as to whether or not significant coverage is acheived, with most participants agreeing sigcov is present. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu


Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu (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)

Promotional article on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, a before search turns up nothing concrete for example see this, this, amongst other unreliable sources yet to develop a reputation for fact checking. The award they one isn’t significant that it rises to satisfy WP:ANYBIO so in all they fail to meet our notability threshold. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not sure what sources you were looking at? Since there's reliable sources represented in the article itself already. But i'll compile a list of those and others as an example:
It looks like he's notable for two separate things, at minimum, the agricultural radio show and then the agricultural cold rooms company that he won a lot of international awards for, including the World Innovation Summit for Education awards. SilverserenC 22:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of which do not discuss the subject of the article with significant coverage so I’m afraid I don’t see how WP:GNG is satisfied when WP:SIGCOV isn’t satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Growing up in Nigeria, Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu spent his after-school hours raising poultry and cattle. After high school, as he participated in youth and citizens' associations helping farmers, Ikegwuonu quickly became aware that the rural community had little access to information about farming practices and environmental issues. In 2003, he founded the Smallholders Foundation to provide the rural community with information - via the radio - on contemporary agricultural techniques and environmental conservation. Ikegwuonu, who has a bachelor of arts in history and international studies and a master's degree in cooperation and development, is becoming known as a change-maker who fights poverty using new interactive technology"
This is just an example of the personal information about his life in just one of the sources. They are not just about the companies at all. SilverserenC 02:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have much to do with Europe either. CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does, the subject spent a considerable amount of time in Germany, and I believe Germany is a European country. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Celestina007, but you did not answer my question. --SVTCobra 11:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra, an error on my part, apologies, i intended to put Germany and Europe & not Europe, US and Texas, sorry for the confusion. Celestina007 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain' I'm not sure about notability, but the CNN story is to some degree a promotional interview. No news source is free from doing that. A relatively responsible source will print a promotional article only if they truly think it's newsworthy enough to be worth promoting. In many cases there is no really sharp divider between news and promotionalism. We, however, do have to make a sharp decision between having or not having an article. Most of the time, it's obvious; this isn't obvious. The cumulative effect of the many sources can mean either notability, or a very active PR representative. What I am trying to figure out is whether this is a proposal or a successful product. That's not a formal standard for notability, but if it is not yet in significant use, the sources are much more likely to be PR. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
changed to Delete--see below DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The product is definitely in significant use per the CNN source that says "Officially launched in 2015, ColdHubs now has 54 units in 22 states across Nigeria. More than 5,250 smallholder farmers, retailers, and wholesalers use its cold rooms and in 2020, the company stored 40,000 tons of food, reducing waste and increasing farmers' profits."
Princess of Ara 10:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, you are very correct, please check below for my source analysis. There is literally 0 significant coverage about they themselves. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/africa/coldhubs-nigeria-food-supply-chain-hnk-spc-intl/index.html Yes Subject of the article has no influence on the piece ~ Reads like a promotional opinion piece No The piece is about his organization and not the subject himself ✘ No
https://yen.com.gh/167277-genius-african-man-invents-giant-solar-powered-refrigerators-farmers-photos.html ? The source is yet to develop a reputation for fact checking so if or not it is independent of the subject is questionable No No presence of an established oversight team , neither is there a reputation for fact checking. ~ They describe him with relative in-depth ✘ No
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/africa/cold-hubs/index.html Yes Subject has no influence in the publication of the piece Yes The source has a reputation for fact checking and a clear presence of an editorial oversight team No Yet again the organization owned by the subject is what is discussed primarily and not the subject himself ✘ No
https://editor.guardian.ng/features/agro-care/danfoss-tackles-cold-room-best-practices-and-importance-of-refrigeration-in-nigeria/ No OP-ED Promotional piece No Guest editor, so it didn’t pass through the scrutiny of the editorial oversight team No There isn’t any in-depth significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/dec/28/fighting-food-waste-in-africa Yes Subject has no influence over the publication of this piece Yes Reliable sources No Once again the subject isn’t the primary focus of this piece, invariably SIGCOV cannot be met. ✘ No
https://www.rolex.org/rolex-awards/applied-technology/nnaemeka-ikegwuonu ? Subject may have an influence on the publication of this piece. This is an award show with puffery statement. ~ Bother line unreliable No They do not discuss subject of the article with in-depth significant coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Just to reply to the above, the CNN articles both talk about the source before they talk about organization he set up. Also you deleted two sources that do talk about the subject this morning. So the analysis seems like opinion, rather than fact and it doesn't assess the two sources you deleted, while none gave him extensive coverage, it seems unfair that you nominate this for deletion and then remove valid citations from the article, that is going to make the article inferior, I request you revert these edits. CT55555 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the analysis ignored all of the sources I originally linked in my vote above. SilverserenC 02:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With edit conflicts with Celestina007, I have just checked the references and used them to expand the information in the article a little bit (such as adding his middle name), tightened up the wording somewhat, and removed information not in the refs—exact year of birth (2 refs give his age), where he was born. I found only 2 somewhat promotional sources: the "apply now for the award!" one, which I replaced with their article at the time of the award using the Internet Archive, and the Guardian Nigeria, which I reluctantly kept because it references some specifics about his foundation. The rest are news coverage and in a couple of cases awards coverage. He's been covered over time—some articles from 2015, some including the other CNN from this year—in multiple reliable sources (with the Guardian plus the 2 CNN, we are already at the rule-of-thumb 3) and received several awards, which, while none is the Nobel, are a cut above the "Forbes under 40" stuff. In short, he meets GNG, and the article is not promotionally written. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — As is customary, this would be my last comment whilst I let the community decide for themselves, I have given a source analysis above which I hoped to prove that the subject doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV as it his organization that is primarily discussed and not they themselves as the source analysis shows and anyone can check to confirm this. If there isn’t significant coverage then GNG isn’t met as a major tenet of GNG is SIGCOV, but like I earlier stated, this would be my final comment here and let the community do the remainder. Please if anyone wishes to directly ask me something, please do ping me. Celestina007 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The units are best indicated by the photo in yen.com.gh. It consists of an assembly of. 3 standard items: solar panels, an insulated room, and the refrigeration unit to run it. The second Guardian item indicates what he actually does: He didn't invent any of them. He didn't even assemble them. Danfoss, a international refrigeration company, did. What he does is some combination of selling them as a distributor and buying them himself and renting space in them. Selling/renting 54 refrigerators in a country the size of Ghana is worth doing; but it is hardly significant enough for an encyclopedia . References making a big story out of something trivial are a sure indication of PR. There's nothing wrong with that--it's how people develop companies . But we shouldn't be part of it. If anyone is notable here , it's his PR agent. It helps to actually read at the content of the references DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does any of that have to do with his agricultural radio work that had coverage of him spanning a decade before the refrigeration company was ever a topic? SilverserenC 02:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reluctant to get into a debate about our personal opinions of the merits of a business model. I have opinions, I'll briefly say them here, but I think our job is to focus on if he meets the notability rules. To say 54 refrigerators is technically correct, but they are building sized refrigerators. I did read the sources, I did note the same impact that user:Princess of Ara spoke of above, it's quite big, but again, if that is notable or not should be about the CNN etc, not our personal opinion on business models and or human impact. And this is taking place in Nigeria, not Ghana. I think the reason we consider CNN and The Guardian reputable is that people presumably can't just persuade them to run articles, they have an editorial team. CT55555 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: please look again. Even if you consider the size or independence of his business as relevant to determining notability (I can't quite follow the logic there with respect to notability guidelines, since that's presumably taken from one aspect of the special guidelines for businesses, and GNG trumps all special guidelines; and in any case impact can be measured by other criteria), I agree that ColdHubs is probably not notable in itself; this is the article on its CEO, not the draft article on the company. And you appear to have misinterpreted some of the cited sources. The "second Guardian item" is guardian.ng, and is about an event held by Danforth. It neither states nor implies that Ikegwuonu's coolers are produced by Danforth. See my edit summary: I went back and forth about removing that source, but it has valuable information about his Small Holders Foundation. And as CT55555 points out above, Ikegwuonu is Nigerian, not Ghanaian. I did not consider stats on the uptake of the coolers to be germane in an article about him, but if that is important to you, look again at the 2021 CNN source, which I believe is where you got the 54 units number from; the passage reads: "ColdHubs now has 54 units in 22 states across Nigeria. More than 5,250 smallholder farmers, retailers, and wholesalers use its cold rooms and in 2020, the company stored 40,000 tons of food". Whether this represents franchising or licensing of the technology in addition to ColdHubs' own units, or just the local circumstances that a large number of individual farmers and traders make shared use of each unit, 5,250+ and 40,000 tons are big numbers. I disagree with you on their relevance in an article about the person, especially since he has been written about for other things than being a successful business owner. (And I note that while I was scrutinizing the existing sources and reworking the article to expunge unsourced information and to make it as visibly unpromotional as possible (slowed by edit conflicts, but I'm slow in any case), Silver seren found a treasure trove of additional sources, including more information about his education and who knows what else, I or someone else needs to look at them and further improve the article.) But if the stats are relevant, then presumably they should be added in that form, and his notability should not be judged based on assumptions that 54 is not great penetration of the market? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The success, failure or reach of his business has nothing to do with the GNG. I also doubt his PR expert lobbies a 1 million dollar innovation prize or the 1.5 million dollar AYuTe challenge. Princess of Ara 05:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The 'source assessment' table is a flashy way to try to sway votes. It looks an attempt to make it appear as if someone other than the nominator asserts a lack of notability. I really hate to say this, but this does not appear to be about the article, but rather some other drama (for lack of a better term). --SVTCobra 04:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SVTCobra, It's most likely a pointy attempt to justify this failed report at ANI. Princess of Ara 05:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I honestly share the same opinion with SVTCobra, this source assessment table is just to misguide. The article clearly passes GNG. I feel this AFD/Source assessment table is just to prove a point that does not exist... Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mean, he is (either partially or prominently) featured in Deutsche Welle, CNN and The Guardian articles, so..yes, not to mention he has received a bunch of awards for his contribution to the field. Looking at the sources provided by Silver seren (thank you!) Passes WP:GNG. I'm sure the editor has the best of intentions, but I'm a bit wary of the provided source assessment table and its conclusions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per keep votes. I admire the diversity in the origin of the sources. (Nigeria, Ghana, UK, Bangladesh, Switzerland, etc.). While I appreciate the source analysis above and agree with most of the first and second column, I do not entirely agree with some entries for the last column. This is without prejudice to the author because I have seen even administrators disagree on what is truly "significant coverage". HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:41, 31 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Escarment

Junior Escarment (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)

Promotional article on a non notable politician who fails to meet any criterion from WP:NPOL and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search reveals self published sources, user generated sources and a plethora of other primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 26 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. The finding of more sources pushed the consensus towards the subject meeting WP:GNG, thus rendering moot the policy disputes over the ideal relationship between different notability guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (baseball)

John Moore (baseball) (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)

Though a common name, I'm not finding enough coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: In light of Penale's research showing his career lasted at least two years for three teams, rather than three games, and the substantial expansion, please have another look. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played 3 games in a MAJOR LEAGUE. This is a Negro leaguer, where sources are harder to come by, but more info (especially in the last few years) is being dug up. I am leery of the nomination (not their WP:AGF, but possibly WP:POINT); the OP had one of their NFL articles deleted, so now they are targeting MLB articles, but to target a Negro leaguer is in poor taste. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski is inappropriate to apply here as it's football (NGRIDIRON) not baseball (NBASE). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), then, no, it is not applicable either. "Jones" had so little known about him that his first name was unknown, and his last name may or may not have been that of another player. The article was about the game and other unknown players, not about the article subject. John Moore, however, is verified to have existed and played in several games that are known about. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which came a week after Jones & was based solely on the Jones AfD. And my argument for Lewis is word for word what is is for Jones. Not applicable. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the target suggested above. GNG should be considered largely irrespective of reporting bias, as the subjects should all have SIGCOV whether it be readily on-hand or currently inaccessible; a standalone is not warranted if coverage can't even be presumed, regardless of the reason. The best approach for us to address media discrimination would be for articles such as this to be redirected to lists, and then for the baseball project's Negro league task force (which doesn't seem to have been active since 2016) to coordinate finding sources on each redlinked entry. WiR does this with women's bios all the time: someone comes in with a draft or a list of female award recipients and asks the project to help find refs, and often another editor with access to offline or paywalled sources provides them. The result is a far more fleshed-out profile with GNG sourcing from the get-go.
Extended commentary

While this does happen sporadically on the sports projects pages, I think the difference in underlying article creation motivation at WiR (bolstering coverage of women, with attention to producing quality encyclopedic articles) compared to the SSGs (a very large proportion of creations derive from efforts either to "complete" a category of subjects meeting an SNG, or to boost an editor's creation count; neither puts any emphasis on achieving quality and both encourage database-dump microstubs) is a much bigger factor in how frequently such collaboration occurs. Even if only a small minority of sports project editors mass-create microstubs, the protection afforded by the SNGs allows microstub proliferation to far outpace thoughtful article creation by the majority, and we end up with tens of thousands of bios on people whose notability is not clearly presumable.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes the relevant SNG. I disagree with using a wrongly-decided AfD about a different sport as a basis upon which to start attacking baseball articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability requirements for having played at the major league level. Unlikely to get much in the way of updates unless an author does a deep dive and writes a book on these players. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, @Lepricavark: GNG supersedes NSPORT, so meeting the SNG is actually irrelevant once notability is challenged. Here are the relevant instructions on NSPORT: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
    The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

    Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

    In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, I do not believe that we are improving the encyclopedia by eliminating content that covers individuals who played at the level specified by the SNG. I realize that policy technically differs from me on this point, and I also realize that there are some editors who are all too eager to crusade against these "sub-stubs" as if their existence is a stain on Wikipedia's reputation (I suspect that this crowd would overlap significantly with those who whine and complain about the percentage of Wikipedia articles that are sports-related). However, I will stand by my belief that it does not benefit Wikipedia to cover 99% of all Major League Baseball players but then apply GNG to a small handful. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we work on other areas of the encyclopaedia as well and like some rough level of consistency in how people are treated. Giving an article to everyone who ever played a single baseball game at a particular level and this is the only thing known about them would be the equivalent of giving one to everyone who ever founded a business, or wrote a book, or was notable because of a single event. Here we literally just have a database entry and that's it. Liking or disliking sports doesn't even come into it. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect - Lacks any sigcov, keep !votes are leaning hard on an SNG but ultimately this guy still has to meet GNG and he doesn't (and even if he did, the minimal content makes this a WP:NOPAGE case). The only sources here are "listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" which are excluded from showing notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on Cbl62 and Penale52’s new sources. Congratulations to them for finding the sourcing that I and others failed to find. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having played only three games, Moore is not the best test case, but the Negro Leagues are a special case. Due to systemic racial bias in the mainstream (i.e., white) media, and despite having athletes competing on the same level as the white major leagues, Negro league players were largely ignored. Adding to the difficulty, most of the black newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s haven't yet been added to Newspapers.com. The result of this systemic bias is that our articles even on everyday Negro leaguers like Steel Arm Davis (20-year pro career), Harry Jeffries (19-year career), and Ambrose Reid (13-year career) lack SIGCOV. We need to be more lenient in the level of coverage required for Negro leaguers. Cbl62 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. When those sources become more available, and assuming (as is actually unlikely) they gave Moore any significant coverage, then the article can be created with actual content. Actually, from experience, the existence of this article may dissuade people from creating a better one. FOARP (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up. All disagreement aside, but arguing that an existing article should be deleted because it prevents someone else from creating a better article is not a reason to delete. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m arguing that we should not simply keep an article with no sourcing indicating notability because sourcing might one day show up. The existence of this article actually de-incentivises people to go out and find that sourcing (assuming, as is unlikely, that it exists).FOARP (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: (1) If we know a subject received SIGCOV, but it was exclusively in sources that are absolutely irrecoverable, should an encyclopedia still cover them? (2) Does this change if the irrecoverability is a consequence of systemic oppression? (3) Does any relaxation of our guidelines/WP:NOT due to (2) apply to people who only might have received SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Moore has an entry in the The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues by James A. Riley, which expands on his career some. It actually began in 1928 with the Pittsburgh Crawfords while they were a semi-pro club before he moved on to the Homestead Grays that August. I was able to find two mentions of him in the Pittsburgh Courier, along with the interesting note that when he and another player left the Crawfords, that opened a roster spot for none other than Josh Gibson. I have updated the article accordingly, but will continue to search for more on Moore, no pun intended. Penale52 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 12-line biographical entry in The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues qualifies, if marginally, as SIGCOV. Thanks to the efforts of User:Penale52, it is also now apparent that his Negro league career was not limited to three games but instead extended over at least two years. This article was created less than two months ago and has already developed significantly (three-fold expansion of narrative text) during the pendency of this AfD. If the presumption of notability is not completely illusory and has any effect whatsoever, this article should be allowed further time to develop. It is entirely likely that, given the length of his baseball career, additional SIGCOV will be included in other black newspaper outlets of the time. Cbl62 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added some content from Sandlot Seasons: Sport in Black Pittsburgh published by the University of Illinois Press that has a paragraph about his multi-sport career. It turns out he was also a star on one of the early black professional basketball teams known as the Black Fives -- and also played semipro black football as quarterback of a Pittsburgh team. Expansion of narrative text now more than ten-fold in the last few hours. Do any of the redirect voters still believe this article is not worth saving and continued development?? Cbl62 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to weak keep, based on the strengthened presumption of SIGCOV sources existing offered by the Riley profile and Sandlot mention uncovered by @Penale52: and @Cbl62:. While the surprisingly numerous sources on his high school and semipro basketball career aren't particularly deep, I did enjoy the old-timey turns of phrase used in this article, praising him and his all-star section teammate as "youthful satellites of the hardwood", and this one, where the author really hammered home a triple horse derby/Paul Revere/elk-based theme in his description of each Iron City Elks "midnight basketball" player ("Now listen, my readers, and you shall hear more about these modern Paul Reveres: ... A worthy leader of these antlered galloping ponies of the polished floors is Hilton "Scummy" Slocum, former pacer of the great Renaissance stable.") JoelleJay (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, they don't write 'em like that any more. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wow! That was some great work done by Penale52 and Cbl62. I agree he now meets GNG. I'm surprised I wasn't able to find any of that in my search. Is there a way I can withdraw this AFD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can only withdraw if there are no votes other than "Keep", but your inclination to withdraw should be weighed by the closer. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox (brand)

The Fox (brand) (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 fact that a bunch of stations go by this brand and play similar music doesn't make the brand notable. Quite a number of the stations are of no relation to each other at all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:57, 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 redirect to IHeartMedia#Programming. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brew (brand)

The Brew (brand) (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)

Non-notable radio brand that now is only used on two stations. Fails WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:53, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 20:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Country (brand)

Cat Country (brand) (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)

There is no connecting thread among these stations; it just so happens that they have the same name. This is like a list of people named Jane. The brand itself isn't notable, nor is there a strong affinity that binds these stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 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. Sandstein 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 13 December 1814

Action of 13 December 1814 (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)

1. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is a nationalistic POV, written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The afternoon firefight between a schooner and seven rowboats on 13 September 2014 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. 5. Reading reputable sources on the conflict have demonstrated that the content is inaccurate, and that the events of 13 December 1814 take up less than a paragraph within the several pages covering the Battle of Lake Borgne Keith H99 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Existing commentary on this essay created in 2009 posted here:

Talk:Action_of_13_December_1814#Request_for_deletion_in_December_2021
Comments added prior to creating this AfD. Keith H99 (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Reformatted wiki link Keith H99 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a bona fide victory, then it would be documented as such. Nothing matches back to source material. He has created a fake battle, and given it a fake title. He's also created a wikipedia page about a fake military unit that is not documented anywhere. The skirmish that occurred is documented in one paragraph within the Battle of Lake Borgne article. The article contains his opinions and theories. His original research from 2009 -or as I think it should be referred to: fiction - has never been mirrored or sanctioned by the likes of the US Naval History and Heritage Command, because most of the content is not validated as truthful when tied back to source material. Why would a bona fide American victory have a British style of date?
I've been telling a friend about how this nonsense has been online for twelve years, totally unsourced, made up in large chunks is a great example of the bad press that wikipedia gets. It is unsourced, poorly written, and flag-waving nonsense from someone whose volatility saw him banned from wikipedia. It is preposterous that because the Action of 14 December at Lake Borgne was a British success (for which a battle clasp was issued in 1847), that some nationalistic MAGA moron decides to counterbalance it with a bogus battle set on the prior day that he thinks has to be invented to counteract it. By his own acknowledgement, he did not provide sources, he just wrote what matched his agenda.
The first contact was with three of Lockyer's launches and the schooner Sea Horse on December 13 at 3:45pm. At 2:00pm she had been sent to remove, or failing that to destroy, a stores dump at Bay St. Louis in order to prevent its capture by British forces. The schooner, with the protection of two land-based 6 pounder cannon,[12] saw off three approaching launches with grapeshot, who initially retired out of range. Sea Horse faced a subsequent rowboat attack with four more launches as reinforcements. This renewed attack was 'repulsed after sustaining for nearly half an hour a very destructive fire.'[3] In the face of superior numbers, the Sea Horse was scuttled and the store was set alight, an explosion occurring at 7:30pm with a large fire being visible thereafter.[12]
[3](Roosevelt 1900, p. 77.)
[12](Letter from Jones to Patterson dated 12 March 1815, within Brannan (ed). pp.487-490)
In essence, the exchange of fire between the schooner and several rowboats is summarized above, documented as a skirmish within the Lake Borgne engagement. It never was a battle, and what he reports is not reflected in source material for the most part.Keith H99 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source of Roosevelt and the primary source of Jones's letter to Patterson are in the public domain. Please do access them, and see how what they recount is not reflected by the fiction that was created in 2009. Keith H99 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is scary. By using a prefix of "Action of " and recording dates in a British English format, he seems to have invented a number of battles, including a US Navy battle honor of the "Action of 1 April 2010" with no sources whatsoever. Keith H99 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a remarkable production, overall. I'm a bit compromised with grandkids afoot these days, but wanting to help as I can. The truth will always out, and just may need a hand. Lindenfall (talk) 20:25, 11 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 delete. Sandstein 10:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cobb (Musician)

Billy Cobb (Musician) (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 a before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:24, 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 keep. A relatively close call, but given the trend of the discussion as additional sources were found, this looks more like a keep than no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Junge

Alexa Junge (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)

Only reference is IMDb. Significant coverage from independent sources is not easily found. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.emmys.com/bios/alexa-junge
    • @Kpdow360: I'm glad you're adding references to the article, but noticed you haven't added the references above to the article. Footnote #1 should be placed after the sentence(s) it supports. The Hollywood Reporter article is a passing mention of Junge, not significant coverage. I hope the NYT article has more about Junge. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacking in substance and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lacking in substance" isn't a meaningful deletion argument. pburka (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concur with Pburka there; the question isn't about the quality of the article, but rather whether the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article at all. Many articles on notable people began as stubs or starter articles, or initially were lengthy but poorly written or full of copyright violations — e.g., the Lupe Ontiveros article was one long copyvio when I first read it, to the point I practically had to start from scratch to edit it, but she's still notable.
  • Delete - I'm not convinced this subject merits its own article. While there are plenty of passing mentions of her about the relationship between Julia Roberts and Matthew Perry, everything else is either about her play Fingersmith (which is great, but, it's also localized coverage. It's not like it's a nationally recognized play and her name is only mentioned in passing as the writer) or a primary source mentioning her and 249082093843 other people were nominated for Friends in the Golden Globes and Emmy's. When a TV show is nominated, everyone and their mother is included in that nomination who worked on the show. I'm not convinced she merits inclusion. Doesn't qualify for WP:GNG, IMHO. Missvain (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Variety is local coverage and the Boston Globe is a major newspaper (although technically local). Regarding the Emmys, she was nominated by herself in 1999. Her other nominations were all groups. pburka (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pburka: The Variety and Boston Globe articles are not significant coverage of Junge - they just mention her as the writer. The Boston Globe article has not been added to the article. You might want to update the article to specify which award nominations were groups versus solo nominations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Globe and Variety aren't local - I'm a journalist who has written for many national publications and I have friends who work at both...I should have wrote originally "localized or trivial mentions." But, it's passing and doesn't qualify for GNG nor am I convinced she's got enough coverage to build WP:BASIC. So...still delete. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) Those of us granted access to Wikipedia Library — or whatever you call that project where Wikipedia gives some editors the opportunity to access databases that normally might be accessible only by paying a subscription fee — can find more articles, such as the Jan/Feb 2017 issue of The Dramatist, official bimonthly publication of The Dramatists Guild, in which Junge was the interviewee for a two-page feature that concludes with mention of Fingersmith then notes, "Her plays and musicals have been produced at the Goodspeed Opera House, Studio Arena Theater, Playwrights Horizons Lab, Theaterworks and developed at New York Stage and Film, the Hedgebrook Women Playwrights Festival, MacDowell and Djerassi colonies. TV work includes Friends , Sex and the City, West Wing, Big Love, United States of Tara, Grace and Frankie, among others." Both the fact of the interview in a nationally-known publication and the venues where her work has been performed suggest notability. (2) Her work writing the fifth-season TWW episode "The Supremes" received praise at the time and still is mentioned for its excellence. Even when the subject is how that first post-Sorkin season sucked, her writing of that episode is singled out for praise, as when 'Decider' wrote, "Which isn’t to say that the season didn’t have its moments. The Glenn Close-starring episode 'The Supremes' might be one of the show’s best. ... There were some fun comedy bits along the way — not surprising since the episode was written by Friends vet Alexa Junge... ." (Bob Reid, 3 March 2016, more than a decade later)."Disaster Relief" was rewarded with an Emmy nomination for Junge and her co-writer. The popular podcast West Wing Weekly interviewed her when they covered the s5 episode "Disaster Relief," which she'd co-written. This is a podcast sufficiently well-known and popular that people traveled to DC and paid money to attend live tapings. (For anyone wondering why I don't add this info into the article, I plan to, as soon as I'm done posting this contribution to the discussion; already had to retype it once when I accidentally hit the back button!)
Update Struck through a quote erroneously crediting Junge with a different episode written by Deborah Cahn. (lwt)
(3) Here's an item from Hollywood Reporter that indicates not only did Junge write episodes for Tara, without Junge as an EP, the show might never have gotten on the air. Writing about Junge's decision to depart: "Alexa Junge, the executive producer/showrunner of Showtime's "United States of Tara," has decided not to continue on the series, which recently was renewed for a second season.
"Bringing Friends alumna Junge on board was key to securing a series order for Tara, created by Oscar winner Diablo Cody. ... Junge penned three episodes, the last of which airs Sunday." (Nellie Andreevna. “Family ties strong for Roseanne; Junge steps aside as 'Tara' topper" Andreeva, Nellie, Hollywood Reporter, 00183660, 23 March 2009, Vol. 409, Issue 4, page not given.) Lawikitejana (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the heads-up, User:GoingBatty.[reply]
@Lawikitejana: It's great that you're using your access to the Wikipedia Library to find more articles. Remember that the basic notability criteria states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Interviews by definition are not independent of the subject, but the interviews may also have good information in the interviewer's words. I look forward to seeing you continue to add references to the article. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:

Point taken, although "independent of the subject" is more about things like not using press releases from someone's own company, or possibly articles published by an outlet that is part of the same parent (e.g., one could argue about independence when CBS reports on someone's publication with Simon & Schuster, which is owned by the same company), or possibly a White House press secretary's statement as evidence of what a president did or didn't do. Where I do think you have a point would be if I took something in the interview as proof of anything that needs supported by a secondary source. In this case, however, the interview was offered simply as evidence either that (a) she's sufficiently significant to The Dramatists Guild as a writer that they picked her from among the scores of playwrights they could have profiled or as a more reliable source than IMDb as to her credits, particularly apart from film/TV. Reminder appreciated nonetheless. Lawikitejana (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 30 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. Sandstein 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Özlem Tekin

Özlem Tekin (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)

Created X-wiki a while back. No signs of meeting GNG. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot list all the coverage about her. She was huge in the 1990s and 2000s. There is even a biography about her. Missvain (talk) 02:02, 23 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. Not shown to have coverage to meet WP:NCORP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Deals

Utopia Deals (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)

Promotional company article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is no clear example of WP:NPOV violation in the article. Article also has more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG. RealKnockout (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: RealKnockout (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this one-paragraph article is indistinguishable from a blurb that would appear on a company profile page from an online retailer. It is almost entirely sales figures and a list of what products it offers and where to buy them. That isn't enough for an encyclopedia stub. It could be made into something more, but as it stands it's very promotional.Citing (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the marketplaces they operate on and added manufacturing information. Is that fine? RealKnockout (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs some work. I looked around and the article on Daraz may be a helpful model in terms of content and sourcing (assuming there are enough in-depth sources to improve the article -- I am not familiar enough with this topic to find more sources though). Citing (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean now. I definitely have enough sources to do that (especially due to how long the BBC Urdu article is), I will try to rewrite the article later today. RealKnockout (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - via WP:G11.-KH-1 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely promotional as pointed out by Citing above. 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. Most of the references talk about the CEO or the fact that the company topped some charts for sales, but nothing that could could as in-depth information. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources only mention the founder in the title, the content they contain is almost exclusively about the company. Furthermore, consider reading the BBC Urdu article with Google Translate. RealKnockout (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do more than mention the CEO, they are repeating and regurgitating his quotes and interviews with no "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND). Here's a quickie analysis of the sources.
  • This from BOL News is based entirely on an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  • Very short article on BBC (a puff piece), all of the information (including the tweet) is based entirely on stuff provided by the CEO or the company. Fails ORGIND
  • In May 2021, in an attempt to cash in on the news that Amazon had added Pakistan to their list of sellers and currencies, the topic company and their CEO went into promotion overdrive starting with a small interview on 16th May. That is why from 19th May there are several articles all repeating the same "facts". This is not news, it is marketing. None of the articles such as the ones from Startup Pakistan, the Urdo BBC the piece, Technologistan, Pakistan Observer, Extra Mile Pakistan or Naya Daur are useful for the purposes of establishing notability.
Having searched, I cannot see anything else about the company that doesn't rely entirely on interviews with the CEO or generic description which is copied from the website. HighKing++ 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW states that a good amount of interviews (from reliable sources) showcases that the the topic is receiving good attention and could make it notable. The company interview with BOL News (A major Pakistani news agency), BBC Urdu (the BBC itself, and the interview doesn't appear short by any means), and the 3 paragraphs on PT by Pakistan Today (another Pakistani news agency) means that the company alone being able to secure interviews with non-niche agencies is contribution to notability. A reprint of the interview facts would also mean further relevance and notability? I think this lets the article marginally fit WP:GNG. RealKnockout (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response Two reasons. First, WP:INTERVIEW is neither policy nor guideline but an essay and therefore cannot be used to "overrule" applicable policies/guidelines. It is also geared towards interviewing people for that person's notability, not companies or organizations. That said, the Notability section helpfully points out acceptable elements which may assist in establishing notability such as "a depth of preperation", "the interview material" being "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts" and presenting "their own evidence challenging claims" being made and "offering their own conclusions". This sentiment is very much in line with WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content" which I've pointed out above. Also, eacch reference must meet all of NCORP's criteria. For example, if an executive provides in-depth information on the company (which would meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria) but the journalist fails to provide their own opinon/analysis/etc (failing WP:ORGIND) then that reference still fails NCORP criteria and cannot be used to assist in establishing notability. If you're implying that any of the sources you claim are good in that respect, please point out which paragraph. Secondly, the applicable guideline is not GNG as you say (see the WP:SNG section of GNG), but WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first interview by BOL News contains a fairly long segment on the company and the CEO plus a bit of background information. There is a YouTube video there of the interview which you can see. I will examine the interview later and translate anything which would show it is appropriate for notability (it is in the Urdu language) Together with the BBC Urdu piece and the other interviews supporting it probably meets notability crtieria. Also, my mistake, I typed GNG accidentally, I had meant to reference WP:NCORP. RealKnockout (talk) 01:11, 8 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 delete. The "keep" opinions are weaker. They are based on the supposed academic importance of the journal as per WP:NJOURNAL, a page that has essay status - that is, it does not reflect Wikipedia community consensus. The "delete" opinions, on the other hand, stress the lack of reliable independent sources that cover this journal. This is a very strong (and unrebutted) argument, because it reflects WP:V, a core policy. Sandstein 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History

Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (journals) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: None of the indexing services mentioned are selective in the sense of NJournals, being held in some libraries is trivial, being peer-reviewed or not is irrelevant to notability, and concerning authors being notable WP:NOTINHERITED applies. That leaves the number of GScholar citations, which looks like a decent amount at first sight, but over 1000 of those citations are for a single article. If these citations mean anything, why has, say, Scopus not yet picked it up? --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Randy said, we have to remember that NJ is subordinate to GNG. Did you find any WP:SIGCOV of this journal? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just ran this search an advanced search in Google scholar, on publication title. That gives me 977 articles from "Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History" in Google scholar. I looked through just the first six pages, and all of the individual articles from the journal were cited... by between 6 and 40 other articles. I then ran an additional search on JSTOR - and found 311 article/books that had cited work from it. This definitely would appear to meet WP:NJournals "Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". criteria 2. 2 (c) allows for using worldcat as a measure to see if the journal is listed in a number of libraries, which it appears to be.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If those citations are really that substantive, then why has not a single selective citation database picked up this journal (GScholar includes everything, so being included in there is as significant as being indexed by Google)? And I disagree with #2(c) as WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 2 of WP:NJournals simply refers to a journal being regularly cited, which there is ample evidence of in Google Scholar. Your question about selective citation database indexing refers to a different criteria (Criteria 1b), which it doesn't meet - however it does meet criteria 2, so it does meet the requirements for WP:NJournals. As for Worldcat, it is specifically mentioned as a valid measure by WP:NJournals."For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat" Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, NJournals does not give any indication how many citations suffice for #2. You think it's enough, I disagree. As for WorldCat, in my experience it is all too often unreliable. It may list a certain library to have a journal, but if one then checks the catalogue of that library itself, that turns out to be incorrect. Also very often journal-related info (such as publisher) is incorrect, too. NJournals should be adapted, but even though it's just an essay and not a guideline, that's almost impossible to do. (Look at its history, many editors find it too lenient, but equally many find it too restrictive). Unless something clearly meets #1 (which can be verified by independent sources, I prefer to go with WP:GNG, which this journal fails by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A journal, published by a university press, will almost inevitably consist of peer-reviewed articles, which are likely to be regularly cited. Unfortunately, history is rather less well-covered by various citation indices and abstraction services, whose focus tends to be scientific. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: being peer-reviewed does not mean that a journal is notable. And if you look at Scopus, for example, you'll find dozens of history journals (and journals in other academic fields). Of course, even if you were correct that such journals are not or less well covered, that would just reinforce the case for deletion: if a subject is not covered by reliable sources, we cannot have an article on it. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "History" is a much smaller field than "science", so of course there are fewer history journals in Scopus. From the link that you gave, I don't see that history is covered less extensively than science (there's one table that might suggest that, but that table is an example analyzing research output in Australia only). In fact, most of that document reports on how well they are actually covering the humanities and social sciences. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 25 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.

Sorted by State

Due to overflow, this part has been moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_States_of_America&oldid=1062288354

Leave a Reply