Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} 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 California. 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 US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

California

David Haave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. All sources are store pages of his books, most of the article is unsourced, and I found no reliable sources online. Borderline G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Military, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the nominator, I could not find any independent sources. The style of the article reads like a blurb that a work-experience publicist wrote, with phrases such as "The author has taken on writing books to a whole new level" and "David has worked to help one community at a time, one child at a time, and has flourished in helping share love with others across the beautiful Nation of America." Ugh.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional, and badly-done at that. His military service is not notable. Intothat darkness 14:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Pumitas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having trouble finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this short-lived American soccer team. All that I found were mentions in game recaps (1, 2, etc.). Possible redirect targets include National Premier Soccer League and List of National Premier Soccer League teams. JTtheOG (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and California. JTtheOG (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.E.D Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(removed WP:PROD) No sources showing WP:CORP is met. DJ Vlad interview the deprodder added also doesn't count for that guideline. Mach61 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Heard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, England, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance. Failed production model. References are company PR, brochures, hype and passing mentions. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are all independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS with editorial staff; some of them covering the demise of the project. These include independent green technology magazines, mainstream media like CNET and KFMB-TV, national magazines like Popular Mechanics etc. These sources have by-lined authors and address the subject directly and in detail. The source analysis by the nominator is off.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @4meter4; can confirm sources 1, 3, 4 (EcoWorld, Green Car Reports, CNET) are reliable, secondary, and give significant coverage. @Scope creep yes it failed but it existed and was covered in the news (and is somewhat interesting) so it is notable for a Wikipedia article. "Secondary coverage" means not using the vehicle specs directly, not "Don't use articles that hype the product". Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is curious that the first Afd was borderline, now is magically keep. I don't think so. The references and coverage weren't examined then but will be now. Reference 1 is a conversation with the founder. It is not independent. Reference 3 is a notice taken from note sent out by the founder, essentially a press-release. It is not independent either. Are you sure Ref 4 is right. It doesn't mention the Aptera 2. I'll go through the references in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute WP:CFORK that is unnecessary. This is already covered Aptera Motors#Design history. The first question I have is how reference #4 (CNET) is significant coverage about Aptera 2? Both keep votes reference it yet I do not see any mention of Aptera in that reference. Reference #1 (Eco World) is clearly marketed as "commentary & forums." How is that reliable? Reference #3 (Green Car Reports) is an industry publication and covers the liquidation of the company, only mentioning the prototype they tried to build (which is already covered in the Aptera Motors page. Reference #6 (TechZulu) is another industry publication with no listed editorial standards. This reference (#9 - Popular Mechanics) is a good reference but causes some question as well (it talks about Type 1 but then says a second model is coming out - so, is Aptera 2 the rename of Type 1 or are they separate - if they are separate then all the references above fall apart for notability). I also fail to see how News 8 (reference #11) is significant since the video doesn't even play. To show this is notable for its own page separate from Aptera Motors, coverage needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT and based on what I see it falls well short. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking at the Aptera Motors page, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two different concepts so why are saying here "The Aptera 2 Series (formerly the Aptera Typ-1)" on the Aptera 2 page? As it is a different vehicle, the sources above about Type1 would be irrelevant to showing notability for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sourcing, the Car and Driver review currently in External Links is also a RS and is specifically about the Aptera 2. Being a "failed production model" is very much not a reason for deletion - notability is not temporary and a vehicle does not need to reach production to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places. Stepho talk 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange idea of independent. Ideal reporting is where you get information from as many places as possible - including the factory and his/her personal inspection of the car. Each source is then weighed for reliability (eg manufacturers rarely lie about a car's wheelbase but often lie about fuel economy, emissions and max power). The reporter then makes a value judgement based on his/her knowledge of the general subject (eg Car and Driver reporters know a lot about cars, reporters for business magazines usually know a lot about economics but little about cars). The ideal reporter is free to report on things from the factory (if the reporter agrees with it) and also free to report on anything that the factory does not agree with. Your definition of independent appears to be that no knowledge is allowed from the factory at all - which means that if the reporter even glanced at a press release then it is not independent. What are the chances that any reporter never looks at a press release? Stepho talk 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter you are referring to is a contributor to the publication, not a staff writer. Based on the advertorial wording used in the reference, do you feel this is similar to WP:FORBESCON with little or no editorial oversight?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a freelance contributor or a staff writer doesn't make any difference. Car and Driver are well respected for unbiased reporting for the reader's benefit and not just parroting the manufacturers. They have staff editors and lawyers to protect that reputation by weeding out uncritical writers and double checking articles before they are sent to print.

Siler's article for Car and Driver is certainly enthusiastic but he also points out several negative things. Eg, unusually wide front track, restricted rear view, poor ingress for the arthritic among us, poor rear hatch access, poor capacitive-touch buttons, 8-hour charge times. This is no blanket endorsement of a factory press release. He obviously wants it to succeed but still calls attention to its short comings. Stepho talk 04:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I'm not sure we agree that it "doesn't make any difference" regarding them being a contributor or staff writer though. If it doesn't make a difference, we wouldn't have things like WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference matters when there is no editorial oversight - in which case the contributor can say anything. When there is editorial oversight then the editor gets to remove anything/everything that is not inline with the values of the magazine. Car and Driver have editorial oversight and very good values for balanced reporting, so whether the writer is staff or a contributor no longer matters. If the writer submits an unbalanced story then the editor will simply reject it. Car magazines with a good reputation will work quite hard to protect that reputation and will not throw it away on a cheap report. Stepho talk 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and Huffington Post have very good values for balanced reporting and work hard to protect their reputation as well. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is whether contributors to this publication have the same editorial oversight. A reference that reads good enough to print is one thing. A reference that was fact checked by an editorial staff is different. Again, I am not challenging the source, per se, only raising the question. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting the factory would be a good indicator that a journalist found the topic noteworthy actually. However, looking closer at the writer, it appears they are not a journalist with the publication, only a contributor. This could be similar to the case of WP:FORBESCON but don't know for sure. Regardless, it is being challenged by at least one editor so it would help if someone can show that contributors have the same editorial oversight as the journalists ("staff writers") for the publication. MY QUESTION about the sourcing still remains unanswered. What "addition to previously mentioned sourcing" mentioned in the keep vote speaks specifically about Aptera 2 as again, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two separate models and cannot see the significant coverage for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck? Stepho talk 08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before, A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Prager

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources found since article creation in 2006. No indication of notablity. Hipal (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: notability, and sourcing.

I would Keep on the basis of notability. This would be on the basis of his role in founding Revision3 (we have articles on the other two founders). Being the son of Dennis Prager is certainly interesting, but doesn't convey notability. I'm sure his prominent parent was a help to his career, but I don't see it as crucial enough for a "famous son" article.

Poor sourcing would still be a reason to delete, so I'm neutral on that one. Although I'd be surprised if it can't be improved to an acceptable level. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who told you that sourcing and notability are two separate issues? A lack of quality sources implies that the subject isn't notable. It doesn't matter whether the other founders have articles, because they're not the subjects of this AfD. I also don't see why I should care about what companies he's affiliated with, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, atrociously poor sourcing, and I can't find anything better out there either. I will reconsider if somebody with better search skills than mine should turn up one or two secondary reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject. Bishonen | tålk 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I seconded the proposal to delete because of the poor sourcing. Just because one or two founders of a company are notable due to significant coverage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of them are notable. I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target article. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG, can't find good sources either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revision3 article. Suitable alternative to deletion and the article subject is already mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Amador

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography sourced only by IMDb. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and California. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here of substance. Nothing on an internet search or anything else. The Imdb sources look like he might have had a very minor "reporter" role. Reporters on TV come and go, but this one doesn't show up anywhere. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only linked source is the subject's IMDB page and a quick Google search shows no results of note. Fails GNG. Madeleine961 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised there's as little material as I've found. Amador was indeed the weather presenter at KHJ from 1983 to 1989 (he was dumped in a massive overhaul of the station), he was indeed at KNX, and he apparently indeed had minor VO and acting roles. But I'd expect more SIGCOV, especially in the LA market in that time period, out of the Times and Herald Examiner. I don't have it. Delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisson (singer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician and radio DJ. The claims of notability are a #15 Hot Dance Airplay song in 2006, and one of his songs playing at a club scene in an episode of a NBC TV show. Neither of these meet WP:NMUSIC. All content edits are by two accounts that never edited anything else on Wikipedia (except a deleted draft article on his band). One reference is to the charts for the #15 hit, the other is vague and to a magazine that mentions a lot of musicians in passing. Here2rewrite (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Keeperman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No longer a notable personage. The sources included mostly concern the article's previous subject, the small company Passage Publishing. This may well change in the future, but, over all, there are very few RS that could be used to rectify this issue. Roggenwolf (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that the nom is based on WP:DEL-REASON #8, but the nom fails to show how the article does not meet the standard. Notability is not a past/present thing, so there's no such thing as "no longer a notable personage". If he "was" notable, then he "is" notable. Second, the nom's purpose in proposing deletion seems to be that "most" of the sources are about Passage Publishing. Interestingly, the article was just moved for the exact opposite reason - that sources focus on Keeperan rather than specifically on the Passage. A brief review of existing sources and potential as of yet unused sources indicates there's enough to sustain an article. The article is start-class, although it needs content refocus, but that's enough to warrant alternatives to deletion. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I often weigh in on academic deletion discussions but the embarrassing connection to my employer gives me too much of a COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough news coverage to get over the notability bar. I concur with the above !vote that notability is not temporary. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I requested it be moved, as noted above, for the opposite reason. There are no notability proving sources for Passage Publishing outside of ones that concern Keeperman. If you think he doesn't meet it, I disagree, but the company extra doesn't meet it given how strict NCORP is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original author of the article here. I am new to wikipedia but my immediate impression is that this change didn't make sense, and this rationale doesn't make sense.

The intention of starting the page for Passage Publishing is that they are a publisher, and the works and authors they publish are notable. I believe a page for Passage Publishing should be evaluated under N:PUBLISHING not NCORP

"A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication or a series of publications that are collectively notable."

Whether or not a page for the founder is sufficiently notable seems like an entirely separate issue. Instead of changing an article to an obviously different subject, I would propose that a page for Passage Publishing should exist, and whether or not there should be a page on Jonathan Keeperman should be discussed entirely separately.

Why not revert the change, create a page for Jonathan Keeperman, and have this debate there? Or, do I need to recreate the article for Passage Publishing? Bluetik (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Souls (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article came up as part of WP:NOV24. It has been unreferenced since creation in 2007. Per WP:BEFORE, unable to find any evidence the subject meets any aspect of WP:MUSICBIO. Propose delete. ResonantDis_tortion 23:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. ResonantDis_tortion 23:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article appears also to have been WP:HIJACK/Aed in ~2019... Searching for sources is particularly hard as "Old souls"/"Souls" returns a lot of events that are not related to music. Shazback (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It turns out that their frontman has earned a couple of feature articles: [1], [2], but they're mostly softball interviews and only have brief mentions of Old Souls regardless. I can find nothing about the band except for the usual social media and streaming services, with no in=depth or reliable media coverage to be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Parts Warehouse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The company hasn’t received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. The existing references only include primary sources and self-promotional articles. The sources I’ve found through further searches are limited to primary sources (press releases, financial reports), promotional material, passing mentions, company profiles. The article appears to serve a promotional purpose, focusing on advertising the company rather than providing encyclopedic, neutral content. Maxvolt (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Maxvolt (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to CarParts.com. Graywalls (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CarParts.com, see section 2020, APW was merged into CarParts.com in May of that year. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Here

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable YouTuber with noting close to notability requirement. Majority of the sources are primary to his YouTube videos and websites announcing events. Wanted to put it up for CSD A7 but thought that bringing it here for general discussion will be better Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS that I can find, most of the sources used in the article are primary or in non-RS. Don't quite seem to have notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Quickly fails on WP:A7 citing YouTube are not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, Most of the sources in the article are unreliable. Baqi:) (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Media

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There isn't any significant coverage for this label. There are trivial mentions but nothing more. Frost 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article functions as a list of artists on the label. A majority of the artists are blue linked per WP:CSC (and can be expanded to more as I found sufficient sourcing for a couple), and there's several notable albums that make up a category attached to the page. Koopastar (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a company that doesn't meet the notability guideline for companies. Notability is not inherited. Having notable artists or albums doesn't make the label itself notable. Frost 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Prada

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub about a basketball coach. I took a crack at looking for material but came up short. Best I could add is that he did one year as an assistant coach in the NBA. I could flesh it out with more lower level teams he was associated with, but I found nothing but database entries and mentions in passing of his short stints at colleges and a Chinese team, so it does nto seem worth it. No in depth sources about him, so no evidence he passes WP:SPORTBASIC. No evidence he ever played in NBA so fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Don't see this meeting WP:NBIO Meters (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that there was an unsourced (and undone) edit last year that claimed that as of 2023 he was a middle school basketball coach [3]. Meters (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am getting some hits in google books. I think it highly probable that there may be coverage in newspaper archives. Anyone able to check newspapers.com?4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to withdraw this if suitable coverage is found, but I didn't find any in depth coverage. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill coach with short stints at various colleges, and who peaked with one year as an assistant in the NBA. Meters (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, China, Alabama, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage. Vedicant (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Harrell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; does not meet the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Despite the volume of provided sources, most of those are competition results and databases, and what isn't appears to mostly be skating blogs. I'll let the community decide whether what's there qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Hanna Harrell medaled at the US senior championships. Significant coverage surely exists. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSKATE calls for a gold medal at the senior national champiomships; her highest finish was 4th. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSKATE says that the criteria are chosen on the grounds that "significant coverage is likely to exist for figure skating figures if they [do these things]". And I think it's impossible that a US championships medalist would not have significant coverage. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a very quick search and have found an NBC article ("Hanna Harrell talks taking on Russians at world junior championships") and a YouTube documentary/reportage by U.S. Figure Skating ("Portrait of a Skater — Hanna Harrell"). There's also a full-fledged biography on the Texas Children's Hospital website (here). --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NBC article and YouTube story are both interviews so they don't count towards notability per WP:Interview#Notability which requires the interview include reliable secondary coverage (very few interviews have this). I've had conversations with editors in the last few months around interviews counting and in every case, interviews as sources I presented were denied as counting towards notability. The Texas Children's Hospital article is promoting the hospital so I don't think it wouldn't count as either. Nnev66 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's an athlete that has competed for her country internationally. There are similar athletes on Wikipedia whose notability isn't questioned with far less developed articles. I can't understand why this is even an issue. ash (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Competing internationally isn't inherently notable. Unfortunately, nothing that this skater has done meets the standards of notability established per WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, she meets WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD.
Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale:
· Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas
· Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination).
Are you planning to nominate it 100 times? (It is a good tactics that I have seen being used successfully. Sooner or later no one notices and the proposal passes. I can't be here on Wikipedia 24/7.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable for inclusion per GNG. Vedicant (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this could benefit from more specific discussion about sources, and fewer accusations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe these two sources from the article, which have WP:SIGCOV, count towards WP:GNG. The others are standings, passing mentions, or interviews. I searched Proquest and Newspapers.com but didn't find anything there. Nnev66 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Capellazzi, Gina (February 26, 2019). "Hanna Harrell ready to make her 'debut to the world' at the 2019 World Junior Figure Skating Championships". figureskatersonline.com.
2. Rutherford, Lynn (March 7, 2019). "Ambitious Harrell Will Reach for the Stars in Zagreb". U.S. Figure Skating. Archived from the original on March 15, 2019.

Up Above Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn music records label --Altenmann >talk 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Music Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCORP. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing more substantial than the references already used, most of which are a) listings or b) no longer accessible. (The exception is XXL, which is a Q&A with Nyzzy Nyce, who founded Hurricane Music Group. The Nyzzy Nyce article was (soft) deleted in 2022.) JSFarman (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was completely sideswiped by source1 - the Indiana Secretary of State? Why? What? How? I still don't get the connection. The usual discogs/social stuff out there, nothing to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG even before we get to NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duck Down Music Inc. per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love WP:ATD in theory but I can't find any evidence of their affiliation beyond a few songs credoted to Hurricane Music Group/Duck Down. I couldn't find Hurricane Music Group on the Duck Down website, and Discogs (which I know is not a great source) only lists two releases and both are by the same artist. There is no entry on Allmusic. JSFarman (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid - this artist was under a distro deal with duck down / 3d and made national headlines for blogs and has millions of view due to the joint venture for indiana that’s a staple !! do not remove this !! Guiltytalent (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Adding comment from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Music Group. (JSFarman (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Two contributions to Wikipedia, the first reverted and the second being the above. Hmm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Duck Down Music Inc. isn't a good Merge target as it is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius_Intelligence

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radius Intelligence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks notability; there is not substantial media coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL), and the sources cited are niche and industry-specific, lacking sufficient audience (WP:AUDIENCE). The article appears to be self-promotion. Similar issues were raised with the now-deleted article about the company CEO. Tripofmice (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kabbage as per WP:ATD. None of the source meet criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Louie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable person who created an article about themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been expanded since creation, and Gilmanl's current authorship is around 3%, so I'm not too concerned there. Notability is the bigger concern. The coverage in The Christian Science Monitor is significant, reliable (see WP:CSMONITOR), secondary, and independent. Finding a second source is harder. Most other sources the article cites are not independent, unless the government [4] counts as independent. A Vox article [5] I found may have significant enough coverage, or it may not. More than one sentence addresses Louie directly. Regardless, being on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board might mean WP:NPOL applies. I'm at a weak keep for now. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 07:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: This is from an old magazine [6], with the Christian Science Monitor, should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this is the same person [7], was involved in Tetris coming to popularity. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorke Sherwood

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the required notability guideline for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG per lack of sources. Google search did not show anything indicative of their notability. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For silent film, Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 19:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not rare for actors of early cinema to be uncredited. Given the number of roles he had, he could be considered meeting Wikipedia:NACTOR as a prolific actor in notable productions ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (emphasis mine) -Mushy Yank. 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a number of his roles, they're verifiable so Keep per my argument above. Fwiw, trying to improve the page btw. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)

PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His roles are not significant, as required by NACTOR, in either the silent or sound eras. He worked in the silent era at a time when full-length features were common and actors were credited; the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited underlines his non-notability. Also, his talkie credits are almost all uncredited, not the sign of a notable actor, but rather that of a journeyman. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of Rebuttal No. No No.

1) Please. Read the guideline again or my !vote again. One of the criteria for NACTOR is

The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

Emphasis mine. Prolific.

I did not count but hard to say his contribution was not prolific.

2) he meets that criterion imv; but some of his roles can be considered significant anyway; watch the film I linked; open the articles, some mention his roles with a praise, and I haven't added all that there his. He is a notable supporting actor in my view.

3) "the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited" seems inaccurate. And his presence is always sourceable with books/newspapers sources (I can add 3 refs for each film, you can help if that's your concern)......Or just open the film on the page for example, he is credited and not at the bottom of a 15-minute end credits scroll.

4)The fact that it is a short is totally irrelevant. You don't like short films? sorry to hear that but the fact that they are short (up to 40 minutes...) has nothing to do with their notability nor, consequently, the actor's. Nothing at all.

Anyway, I have added quite a few things to the page. Thank you for your concern.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And p. 151 and 543 of the book you mention in your opening statement are not passing mentions, rather significant coverage, one being a full biographic entry. -Mushy Yank. 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. There are many sources discussing his work in google books; usually in the context of individual parts within specific films. He was a busy character actor that portrayed a range of parts from small roles to mid-sized parts and even a few principal character roles. Altogether the sourcing collectively meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR, and while I didn't do a thorough search, a preliminary search indicates he most likely will pass WP:GNG, if the right amount of time and digging is put into the article, and thanks to Mushy Yank for the work they have put in. He gets a bit more than a passing mention in a 2/16/1931 piece in the The Evening Independent (St. Petersburgh, FL), The Sunday Messenger in Athens, OH calls him a "noted British player", in their review of The Man in Possession on 8/30/1931, even though he is clearly in a supporting role. He has mentions in papers from Adelaide and Murrumbidgee (NSW) to Manitoba, Canada.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical analysis of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home Town Hero

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, other than a biography ([8]) and an album review ([9]) by AllMusic, which isn't a lot. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Under the Influence of Giants, since three of the members were in both bands. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Maverick Records, and the Allmusic entries are serviceable references; they also toured nationally with Stone Temple Pilots and Linkin Park. I managed to dig up [10] this review as well, even though it's gotten very difficult to find album reviews from 20+ years ago on the Internet. Chubbles (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to a member of Under the Influence of Giants, Bitch City was never released ([11]; according to Discogs it was apparently self-released [12]). Regardless, notability is not inherited, and I don't see Linkin Park mentioned anyway. I don't know if ink19 is a reliable source, but even if it is, there's just not enough coverage to establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~Keep~~ as presuming MUSICBIO notability per above coverage, and given the age presuming that further coverage is likely. Further evidence is an album review available in Hits 2002; critical coverage Hits 2001; and the CMJ new music reports indicate extensive airplay, including for example: [13]. There's a lot of hits on worldradiohistory that will take time to sift. ResonantDis_tortion 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've identified further coverage on ProQuest - not major sigcov, but better than passing mentions: Detroit Free Press - they "often bore", two paragraph gig review supporting Incubus in News Gazette, album review in Morning Call, and paragraph of coverage in Billboard. ResonantDis_tortion 21:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aaron Bruno#Home Town Hero. First, they did not release two albums on Maverick, only one. Second, I think the reviews and other coverage falls just short of the depth that would be required. I also found more reviews, [14] [15] but as you can see these are not reliable or significant enough. Last but not least, we lack independent sources for nearly all the band history. A merger would preserve the edit history and it can be revived later if more sources are scanned/made available. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I can get behind this as an WP:ATD, and strike my previous !vote to keep. There is certainly sufficient reliable coverage to demonstrate a level of notability, and therefore the subject does warrant a presence on Wikipedia, but we are, at current standing, one in-depth article away from coverage to support a distinct seperate article. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Under the Influence of Giants as an ATD, per nom. Although I do have SOME reservations based on the lack of sourcing and notability in that target: it's a hot wee mess, that article... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge/Redirect suggested target article and it would be nice to see which one has a consensus behind it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Sartre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bibliographies. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - Doesn't entirely establish notability. Needs better sources and better info. Too many red links, suggesting that not notable
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the subject of a number of profiles including Las Vegas Weekly, Jezebel, and Paper. She's also discussed in several academic sources as seen from a Google Scholar search: [16]. I think there is enough to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a mix of moderate and trivial mentions, from databases or entertainment platforms that focus on her work rather than her broader impact. However, given the combination of in-depth interviews, mainstream coverage (Stern), and critical industry coverage from Las Vegas Weekly, Adult DVD Talk, the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, California, and Nevada. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not seeing a keep on sources now there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two articles from the Daily Beast which detail Sartre: How Porn Made These Women Feel Empowered: ‘It Gave Me a New Sense of Confidence’ and The Rise of Video Conferencing Quarantine Porn. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An in depth article from Le Tag parfait, a french online magazine. Thriley (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism is a cancer that must be opposed at all costs. Speedy Keep 99.122.52.226 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to fail WP:NPERSON. Sources are essentially PR or interviews. The above comment offers no policy based argument and is solely a WP:ADHOMINEM attack. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources in the article, only two might count as independent significant coverage, cites 2 and 3. But 2 is based at least partly, if not entirely on press releases. This is not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The J-Gos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think that this hyperlocal band meets NCREATIVE or GNG. I see one review in a hyperlocal newpaper, and little else of substance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, we have many critical reviews in local press (many fromThe Argonaut in San Francisco and Venice Vanguard and Los Angeles Village View in Los Angeles) which arguably meet WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:NBAND. On the other hand, the coverage is all to events which could be seen as too local (ie small venues, etc), and we should maybe not consider it significant on that basis. However, there's also the fact that the band randomly did make it on Papua New Guinea's national music chart which would mean it passes criteria 2 of WP:NBAND. In the end this throws it over to the keep side for me.4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, following up belatedly. I tried to verify the claim of charting in Papua New Guinea, and did not succeed. For an otherwise somewhat-implausible-sounding claim like that, it would be good if an established non-SPA editor had succeeded in verifying (although of course sources are not required to be online). Perhaps you found it, or have other thoughts on the matter? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest asking for comment by someone with access to newspapers.com to check it out, because that paper’s archives are accessible through that site. Unfortunately, newspapers.com is no longer available through the Wikipedia Library. Given that the other sources have checked out added by the same user, I am inclined to AGF, and believe it is likely true and accurately represents the source.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we could find confirmation of the charted song, that would help, I could go either way, weakly notable, but not enough for me to !vote yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (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.

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [17], [18] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [19]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have the same (2 out of 3) authors. If the organization still existed we could see if these folks "happen" to be directly associated with it. Also, the second one is really poor in content - reads like an undergraduate paper, really. I'm not willing to see these as significant. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving