Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organizations and social programs. 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|Organizations|~~~~}} 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 Organizations and social programs. 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.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.

Purge page cache watch

Organizations deletion

[edit]

Creative Lives

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

Almost entirely primary sourced, some trivial mentions from reliable sources. Beyond that, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Australian Progressives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No inherent notability, has little notice from independent sources. No electoral success and has been de-registered by the Australian Electoral Commission for 2 years Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haringey Solidarity Group

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

Extremely minor anarchist group, little evidence to demonstrate notability. Large absence of independent RS. Attempts to find sources largely fruitless, references in Scholar results predominantly self-published works or very brief mentions that aren't the subject of the article. PROD opposed due to results flagged in Google Books but from those accessible look to be unrelated. Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian League

[edit]
Asian League (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)

Very minor, short-lived political party with no impact. None of the sources provide significant attention, the fourth one doesn't even mention the party. Fram (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:NORG are not met. As noted by the nom, the only sources in the article are either directory-style webpages (the database/registry entries expected for any such org) or, as noted, webpages which do not mention the org at all. Outside the article, my own WP:BEFORE has returned only trivial passing mentions like this or this - seemingly confirming the named candidate's association with the party, but not anywhere near the type/depth of coverage needed to establish NORG. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of health insurance executives in the United States

[edit]
List of health insurance executives in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the top 50 companies by whatever metric is arbitrary. I suggest having the article list the chief executive of companies notable by Wikipedia's standards is a better scope and have updated the article to reflect that. Also see List of chief executive officers. It seems like the article can likely be improved as an alternative to deletion. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NLIST. The timing, the mention of Johnson and the fact that the only detail is about compensation packages is highly suspect and the article creator should probably be on a list somewhere. Astaire (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're arguing for more lists, not less. 120.22.16.98 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feels suspect re timing, and we don't need articles simply listing execs in particular industires. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than Delete due to WP:CROSSCAT, the article should become wider, such as "List of health ensurance chief executives", period. Worldwide. This on its own should also mitigate the notability issue. As a Brazilian, I am willing to source executives from my country. MandRaiden (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Health insurance in the United States is enough for now. Dympies (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:NLIST and the timing. Multiple previous vandal edits include "Hit" or "Hit List of chief executive officers Effective immediately".--Chefmikesf (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That you bring up which kind of vandal edits were made to the page just highlights that the delete rationales are not based on Wikipedia policies or any reasoning. It does not fail the policy you linked for example because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the timing is irrelevant to whether or not an article is to be kept. Per policy, decisions should be made not based on vote-counts but on rationales/reasoning/discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a part of what is arguably a historical event. make it larger and expand it to a worldwide scope maybe. but dont delete. MildLoser (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about the Killing of Brian Thompson, then that article already exists as linked. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just textbook WP:RECENTISM. 1) We're not a crystal ball and so are in no position to establish if this is "arguably a historical event" (everything is a historical event, but we'll say a highly notable one). 2) This list, while hastily constructed by GH as a direct response to the killing of Brian Thompson, is highly incidental to it. 3) There's really no such thing as "expanding it to a worldwide scope", because for most health insurance executives even in the US, we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here with this six-item list (arguably two of which don't even warrant their own article). And the US has the categorically most dramatically privatized health insurance system in the entire developed world that I know of and thus should yield the most notable health insurance executives. I would suggest that you try creating a concrete example worldwide list in your sandbox before suggesting that this be moved without any evidence that it would improve things. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RWall514. It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon"). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is a reference for public information. These people are of financial and medical note. I agree with MildLoser that it need not be exclusively US-focused. Amber388 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs. Naturally the list needs clear cut criteria, then it wouldn't be open ended but eventually come to a natural conclusion. The criteria shouldn't be too strict though, lest we cut the list short. We certainly shouldn't overshoot when deleting content. As for design, bullet points seem the logical choice but maybe a table instead would be better? Anyway, the page hits already show that the content is of interest. The listed CEOs so far all have articles, even with professional headshots, so clearly notability is given. Maybe a minimum annual salary would be a good criteria for inclusion. If it was based on that an international comparison could be educative. --SchallundRauch (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs" - that's not how this works. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Pokemon Test. Just because Vaporeon has a page, doesn't mean some CEO should have one. ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 16:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See List of chief executive officers for a similar article that has been kept at AfD. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – This is not similar enough to warrant discussion (even if WP:WHATABOUT were generally valid), because your list is incredibly restrictive to the point of effective uselessness, whereas that one isn't. Being a chief executive officer of a company with over $10 billion in revenue is substantially less restrictive than being an executive of a health insurance company which operates in the United States. You'll note List of chief executive officers is 1) worldwide (something this article couldn't even benefit from expanding to because of the uniquely messed up state of US healthcare), and 2) operating in any kind of industry. Moreover, that article actually has a completely objective criterion to gatekeep inclusion in the form of "companies with revenue over $10 billion", whereas you cobbled this one together without regard for this sort of good, common practice in lists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as standard index of people by occupation per LISTPURP and NOTDUP. Should Category:American health care chief executives be deleted? Expand and improve. Mbdfar (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* Note there are several other pages with executives of various companies and industries, like this List of Paramount Pictures executives or the List of railroad executives. This deletion request is clearly related to recent events, and this article is also clearly related to them with its timing – however, just because the timing of the article creation lines up with something doesn't mean that this article is inappropriate. If we have something as niche as a list of Paramount Pictures executives, then a list of health insurance executives is far more important to be included. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – This kind of textbook whataboutist argument often gets brought up at AfD discussions, and it isn't compelling. 1) Whereas List of Paramount Pictures executives has actual, unambiguous criteria, this list in the nom clearly doesn't (see, for example, what I talked about on the talk page). 2) I would argue that because they're never seemingly discussed in reliable, independent sources as a group that 'List of Paramount Pictures executives' probably ought to be axed itself. 3) List of railroad executives should be cleaned up to remove those without a corresponding article, but here's something you're failing to grasp here: that list is able to be so long because it has two only criteria – firstly, you need to be in the railroad industry, and secondly, you need to be an executive.
    List of health insurance executives in the United States is so, so lacking in blue links because the following criteria need to be met: a) in the insurance industry; b) specifically in health insurance; c) an executive; d) in the United States; and (unstated because this list was created for soapboxing and thus the inclusion criteria are vague and clumsily established) e) you should be a current executive of the company. The inclusion criteria are both hyper-specific in the kind of job you have to be in (like 'List of Paramount Pictures executives') but simultaneously completely unclear as to the threshold for inclusion (like 'List of railroad executives, where even redlinks are included seemingly at random). Thus, you get the worst facets of these two arguably poor lists you've cited. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists don't need to be strictly made of blue links per WP:AOAL, where it is encouraged to "include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list". Mbdfar (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This list is hyper-specific and extremely poorly made in a way that it's only "useful" as construed by recent outrage spurred by the killing of Brian Thompson. You can see my suggestion on the article's talk page to make this a potentially viable list, and to my mind, it's clear nothing like that is actually workable. GeorgiaHuman's conduct since December 4th has shown me very clearly that this article was made with soapboxing in mind, not because they seriously thought that it meets something like WP:NLIST. Keep in mind that this nomination is currently being brigaded from Reddit (weird how with that, there's a sudden influx of 'keeps' after all the 'deletes'), and I think it's a serious wake-up call that we might want to keep these sorts of high-profile deletion discussions semi-protected to protect the integrity and make sure they're high-quality and based on policy instead of just off-site brigading from people with almost no grasp of policy or guidelines (edit: to clarify: at least in this case, /r/wikipedia is more likely to understand policy and guidelines, but brigading often comes from sources with literally no knowledge of these principles and derails discussion). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is specific, but not hyper-specific. List of United States insurance companies currently has almost 40 notable insurance companies. This list of CEOs, if kept, could potentially have several entries per company. Seems like an appropriate amount of content and useful for navigation. Mbdfar (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main caveat with List of United States insurance companies, which I did see when trying to give the nom a concrete inclusion criteria, is that every single one of the items (except one, which I'm going to remove as non-conforming with the others) have their own article (and as you can see, the fact that it's just companies and not tethered to health dramatically increases the number of articles listed; it's dramatically less specific because we axe two majorly limiting criteria from this one). It seems that ZimZalaBim did what I should've done a few days ago which is to remove all of the execs who weren't notable enough for their own articles (at least counteracting some of GH's worst tendencies as an editor), but even then, something like Sarah London and Jim Rechtin are very arguably non-notable (they were created recently as minimally cited stubs expressly as a response to the killing of Brian Thompson). And unfortunately, opening up this article to 'List of health insurance executives' probably doesn't help that either, simply because the US is – if I'm not mistaken – one of two developed countries in the world with this kind of absolutely screwed up private health insurance system, the other being Switzerland. And I'm sincerely doubtful more than even one Swiss health insurance exec is notable enough for inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that it used to resemble the top 40 list before people decided to delete half of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_health_insurance_executives_in_the_United_States&oldid=1262191393 Acebulf (talk | contribs) 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per reasoning of Users Kopf1988 and MildLoser. - L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider broadening the scope of the article per nom Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ~ HAL333 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Close w/o prejudice for renom This article is undergoing an edit war over the inclusion criteria. I a disappointed in certain well established editors, who should know better than to enter in an edit war over this. [1] [2] The problem is the inclusion criteria, and we can't judge the article on its merits when that question isn't settled. This whole discussion would have been better resolved through an RfC, than by nominating the article at AfD and people blanking half of it. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and expand to different industries. Pedrogmartins (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. Rare examples of actual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation in this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep. This isn't currently a great list, but I don't think it's categorically improper under WP:CROSSCAT; that would be something like "list of insurance executives who play the accordion". Health insurance executive has been a well-recognized category of American executive for generations. Health insurance executives have featured, inter alia, as a group called before Congressional hearings and as the subjects of surveys (there could be numerous additional links for both of those). Discussions about them as a group (and their pay) have been a fixture of every wave of national health care discussion since at least the 1990s. I am inclined to agree with the comments above that the concerns over scope and quality of the list are best addressed by iterative improvement through the wiki process. That said, with an eye to such improvements, I think this would support the encyclopedia much better as part of a detailed List of health insurance companies in the United States, which could contain fields for CEO information and also put that information in a more meaningful context. (The existing List of United States insurance companies#Health insurance (major medical insurance) is sadly little more than a navigation aid, but could be the beginning of something.)
    As an aside, I am concerned by the above bludgeoning of keep !voters with charges of whataboutism. There should be no place on Wikipedia for this kind of hostility to thoughtful dissent. Using WP:WHATABOUT to attempt to discredit any and all arguments from analogy simply reduces that essay to absurdity. After all, [a]nalogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. Moreover, our PAGs derive their legitimacy, if any, from accurately reflecting actual practice, so attempting to discount arguments simply for being based on actual practice is literally as far from a policy-based argument as it is possible to be. -- Visviva (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was going to say delete, but then looked at five or six other entries in Category:Lists_of_businesspeople, and they’re all way worse than this. So while maybe there’s a broader discussion to be had about how lists that just duplicate categories should all be culled, this article doesn’t just do that. And I’d argue, also, that it doesn’t fail CROSSCAT as it’s not an arbitrary selection of criteria; the US health insurance industry and the levels of recompense of its CEOs has been often discussed in print media, so the criteria are sufficiently interwoven. Fish+Karate 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CROSSCAT and failing WP:NLIST. A lot of the keep votes seem quite policy deficient, with arguments that amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, etc. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This article was created a few days ago. I think it’s eminently reasonable to allow some time to ascertain whether WP:NLIST is met (my intuition says it can be shown to be if it hasn’t already been somewhere in the comments above).
I think the WP:CROSSCAT argument is rather weak since it interprets the policy as covering “Americans” as a group, which is a tight squeeze. That’s neither commonsensical nor supported by the extensive coverage in RS of the topic.
Is the timing of creation suspect? Well, perhaps, but also not really. Newsworthy events tend to draw editors’ attention to related topics, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the sort of editor who is brave enough to create articles to decide to do so after their attention was directed by news, or widespread internet discussion. And even if the creator had the motivations some above have ascribed to them, there is an extremely wide gap between an editor wanting, say, the names of a group they consider notable for bad behavior to be publicly visible in one place that Google likes, and creating a hit list. Their motivations don’t matter anyway here, since the decision rests on the usual inclusion standards and nothing else. The topic itself appears to be notable, a page as short as the current revision couldn’t conceivably be worth nuking, that should be that as far as I can see.
Per policy, there is no legitimate reason to bandy such terms around, and the delete voters are also making a lot of noise about keep votes being non-policy-based, while by eyeball estimate making fewer and shorter policy arguments themselves.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Peace in Africa

[edit]
Coalition for Peace in Africa (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 paraphrasing the website for an organization which is not notable. 🄻🄰 03:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendragon Press

[edit]
Pendragon Press (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)

List of unnotable book publishing companies. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this isn't a notable publisher and this article has no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch(talk) 14:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eswatini Single Mothers Organization

[edit]
Eswatini Single Mothers Organization (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 NORG, nothing on Google News now. References on the subject's website stop at 2010. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The correct name appears to actually be 'Swaziland Single Mothers Organization', instead. The only results I get from searching the article's title is mirrored content. The organization itself must have gone dormant or ceased to exist about a decade ago, based on the results I'm getting from searching the correct name verbatim, and those results are all either blog entries or passing mentions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 06:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in Google news or books. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Academia BP

[edit]
La Academia BP (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)

Unnotale salvadoran football club. The only sources I found about it were from Instagram and Facebook, which isn't enough to make it notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CHAMPS Project

[edit]
CHAMPS Project (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)

CHAMPS Project is a combined effort of the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science and the Mississippi University for Women aimed at improving various aspects of education in Mississippi in 2018. I was unable to find anything about it on the internet. No evidence of notability. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Iberia 2010

[edit]
FC Iberia 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable football club. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage by reliable sources. Frost 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiordland Trails Trust

[edit]
Fiordland Trails Trust (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)

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 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! 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

[edit]
Vision of God Records (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)

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicht Club

[edit]
Wicht Club (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)

All of the 3 listed sources in this article are no longer working. I was not able to find anything online about Wicht Club, its definitely not notable organisation. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strength Sports Australia

[edit]
Strength Sports Australia (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)

Doesn't seem to be any good third party sourcing for this - and it 's also a COI edit mess Golikom (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been written from a bias point of view. I have tried to correct it by
1. Attempting to remove information that is not proven (eg: the statement that said that the structure of the board is unclear, and the qualification process is unclear).
2. Reworded statements made from the APU (eg the statement about us leaving the ipf)
3. Included details about what SSA has recently done, including Kettlebell events.
4. Made a statement regarding its stance on drugs.
5. Remove irrelevant information about the position of World Drug Free Powerlifting Federation and being Signatory (it is irrelevant).
6. Noted that we were the 3rd nation that has left the IPF in recent years. USAPL and Powerlifting Australia being the other 2.
7. Added Strength Sports Australia's first competitions (it is now SSA, so very relevant)
8. Our international competitions are now with WDFPF, as it is now an SSA page, IPF is not our international body.
9. Only include world records if they are held while under APU or SSA.
Those changes are reasonable, and no biased.
As this page is not going to be managed without releasing the issues among the sport as a whole, yes it should be closed. Gorani!007 (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
IDreamBooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. 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]

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]
  • Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.
  • This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing++ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."

    2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."

    3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."

    4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."

    5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."

    6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.

      The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing++ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing++ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.
    Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.
    Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing++ 16:43, 10 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! 08:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra Ventures

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hydra Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP.Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources.

Edit: @WikiOriginal-9:, you withdrew the nomination last time. Do you have any comments on whether or not this article should be deleted?

Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 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! 08:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Leisure Limited

[edit]
Greenwich Leisure Limited (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)

It's not clear to me why this page exists or how or why it could ever be bought up to WP's standards.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values No It's the organisation's mission statement No It's the company's own marketing material No Lacks the objective overview required to meet the definition of significant ✘ No
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values No It's the company's website again No It's too close to the subject No Just a list. No prose. ✘ No
https://switchtheplay.com/news/switch-the-play-and-gll-national-news-release/ No It says it's a press release No Press releases are put out by the organisation and are not subject to editorial oversight. No Lacks the critical insights and objectivity required for significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.sportspro.com/insights/analysis/london-2012-olympics-venues-today-london-stadium-velodrome-aquatics-centre/ No Appears to be published by a partner organisation No No discusson of the source's reliablity on RS No Article is about former Olympic venues, not Greenwich Leisure Limited ✘ No
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1097435/ No Press release aggregation site. No Little to no editorial oversight. No Appears to discus the company's rebrand but not the actual company or its history. ✘ No
https://www.andrewbibby.com/socialenterprise/greenwich-leisure.html No Bibbly is a journalist for hire No Published to journalist website without editorial oversight. ~ Some depth of coverage but it's akin to a press release and clearly primary ✘ 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}}.

𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully object to this page being placed suggested for deletion. GLL is notable as one of the UK's larger social enterprises and also runs some of the venues that were used in the 2012 London Olympics, such as the London Aquatics Centre (which has its own Wikipedia page) and is also mentioned on the Zaha Hadid Wikipedia page. There are also quite a number of Olympic and Paralympic medal winners that were supported by GLL's Sport Foundation. I'd like to try and find some independent, impartial secondary sources so the GLL Wikipedia page could meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Could we take it off the list for the time being so I can suggest some changes and then reassess please? Leemann72 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The applicable guideline is WP:NONPROFIT, and it is also noted there is no indication of a WP:BEFORE search done by the nominator. A quick search on ProQuest indicates circa 419 hits for "Greenwich Leisure Limited". Further in-depth analysis would be needed to build an article, but there does seem to be coverage out there including this, in a long standing journal and written by the journal editor. The Guardian newspaper confirms that GLL is the biggest trust in the UK running sports facilities. All told - enough evidence to presume notability under NONPROFIT in my view - even if the article needs lots of work. ResonantDistortion 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have edited further and added more references to hopefully help improve the article. Leemann72 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel it meets Notability Requirements, but it is time to protect the page so only confirmed editors are able to edit the actual article and nonconfirmed editors and paid editors can only make edit requests on the talk page.--VVikingTalkEdits 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with the Guardian sources it probably meets WP:GNG.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 19:35, 8 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! 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Aid

[edit]
Pump Aid (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)

An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bandidos MC support clubs

[edit]
List of Bandidos MC support clubs (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 a few of these have their own articles, and the rest of them are cited mainly to their own webpages. As Wikipedia is not a directory, I recommend this article be deleted due to the list not having a claim to notability. ... discospinster talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

[edit]
American Association of Professional Landmen (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)

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NORG would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Novos Negócios

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Votorantim Novos Negócios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.

This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 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! 07:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

[edit]
Fisheries Society of Bangladesh (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)

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design Inc.

[edit]
Robotics Design Inc. (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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:36, 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! 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. This was a blatant advert from the first and despite a lot of toning down and cleaning, still is. Plus it lacks the sort of coverage that is good for WP:NCORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 10 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! 08:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with above; this entire article, at least as an outsider, reads like an advertisement. I find it hard to believe it passes WP:ORGCRIT; even if one source contains significant independent coverage, ORGCRIT requires multiple. To me it doesn't seem like it could be significantly improved even in the future. Beachweak (talk) 09:33, 11 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCEAN Design Research Association

[edit]
OCEAN Design Research Association (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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Note:COI is not a deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete self-promotion/advert. No independent confirmation of notability. --Altenmann >talk 07:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything about this organization that was not authored or co-authored by Michael Hensel, one of the founders and the main contributor to this article. One other name appears as Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel, and given that the organization's web page is in what I am guessing is Indonesian (?), I assume this is a family member. Lamona (talk) 04:23, 5 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! 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Zero coverage of this Association that I can find. Feels like a PROMO that's lingered around for far too long. 15 years is more than enough time for sourcing to be added; that it's not been done in that time tells me this isn't likely to have any and can safely be deleted. The fact that the COI isn't being contested by anyone involved with the Association would also seem to indicate this isn't an ongoing concern. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 11 December 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.

Otago Gold Rush (basketball)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:16, 26 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! 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

[edit]
Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable third-party sources. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [3] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [4], [5], [6], [7] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [8] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; [9] and [10] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [11] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

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

No evidence of notability, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [12]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of horse breeds in DAD-IS

[edit]
List of horse breeds in DAD-IS (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 notability for standalone lists and WP:GNG. This article is a table of entries drawn from a single online database, one which isn't a reliable source itself (see Talk:DAD-IS § Evaluation concludes DAD-IS is generally unreliable for horse topics). Neither this article nor its associated article DAD-IS shows any sources which are independent of the subject, and certainly no significant coverage. All citations are published by FAO, the host of the database. Also fails under WP:NOTCATALOG.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 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! 08:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a list of things listed in a list that's 'Generally unreliable' and not an RS? That's going to go down well, isn't it? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, do not delete, obviously – it's comprehensively sourced and meets WP:NLIST. The FAO is the single most significant world-level agency collecting and publishing data on all aspects of agriculture and agricultural resources, including animal and plant genetic resources, water, forestry and climate; its databases and publications are widely and frequently cited in academic publications. But even if it weren't, there's nothing to stop anyone from adding other sources to the list. A good one to start with might be this: Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944 – in fact I'll go and add that in a moment. Did the nominator even actually do a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources?
I created this page (as a very new user) in 2011 because I'd been told that the List of horse breeds could not contain red links, and wanted to see what horse breed articles were missing from the project. I note that there's no problem with red links in most of our other lists of livestock breeds (e.g., cattle, chickens, donkeys, goats, geese, pigs, sheep, turkeys, water buffalo – but not ducks). I agree that the page title is not optimal, and suggest one of two options to remedy that without losing the content:
Either's fine with me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers: You are arguing for another page, but not this one. Nothing in Mason's contributes to this list-article's notability. If this list was simply a tool for your work, then it should be in your userspace.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There has been some confusion. I am not arguing about the notability of the database, but that the information contained within the database is not a reliable source for much of anything because of the nature of its data collection and zero oversight of the database contents, making the database a self-published source. The database itself is notable; the data in it is not. Therefore making a static copy of the database contents (which is this list-article) is both presenting information as reliable (which it isn't) and is just a mirror of a database (see What Wikipedia is not). If someone wants to get this information they can, and should, go directly to the database and get it themselves.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of horse breeds: or if the author prefers, move it to his own userspace. There's no question that the FAO DAD-IS database is notable, with abundant SIGCOV. But this is not an article about DAD-IS, but a reformatted excerpt/query from it, which adds little encyclopedic value beyond what we already have in List of horse breeds. I understand that the list serves as a useful content creation tool for its author, but that would be better accomplished via a userpage. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I read through the linked discussion and appreciate the poster's concerns. However, the issue under consideration is the notability of this specific data set, not the accuracy or value of the United Nations database. I did a quick Google search and found several secondary sources that specifically discuss the DAD-IS equine data. WP:NLIST says "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That means the article can be improved to meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone list article. For example, the lede could contain information about how the data was collected, why it is important, and how it is being used. Because the article has the potential to be improved, AfD guidelines state that it should be retained. With regards suggestion to redirect, this list includes location, something that is lacking in List of horses. Rublamb (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument slips into that gap between discussing DAD-IS and making copies of DAD-IS. Your point of I found several secondary sources that specifically discuss the DAD-IS equine data is still talking about the main database DAD-IS. Those might well be reliable sources for some content in article DAD-IS discussing the equine data set. However, there is a big difference between "compiling a set" to make a standalone list-article such as List of sculptures by Auguste Rodin or List of Russian composers, and a Wikipedia editor making a copy from a single online database (original research from a primary source). We even have List of online databases and Lists of databases, but I have yet to find any list-articles within Wikipedia which are copies of database contents because that violates WP:WWIN. Even if the lede were improved (with content that I think should go to DAD-IS) I would object to the "copy" of the database.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that I found sources that discuss this specific subset of the database, not the database as a whole. This meets WP:NLIST because it shows that this specific sub-set of data is notable. The fact that the lede can be expanded is key. The lede is an important part of a list article, not a just a throwaway or random addition, because it provides context for notability. (The ledes of FL articles are quite long and could often stand on their own as a text article).
But I do understand your concern that the content of the list comes from a single source. I went back and looked at the DAD-IS entries. There is an array of data for each horse type that is not replicated in the Wikipedia article. Here are some of the fields not copied: most common name, transboundary breed name, geographical classification, breed classification, risk level, SDG local risk status, transboundery breed risk level, local names, description, uses and ecosystem services, cultural value, cultural role, genetic features, specific reproduction characteristics, genetic features, environment role, adaptability to marginal land, morphology information, coulours, performance information, age of breeding animals, birth weight, age of maturity, milk information, prolificacy, management conditions, population data, effective population size, breeding programme, conservation programme, organizations, publications. Thus, this list is not even close to being a copy of the database, but is instead a list of what can be found in the database. I realize this is a fine line, but there is a difference between relying heavily on a single source and copying that source in total. Nor do I find this to be original research; that would be the editor collecting and publishing their own data on horses, rather than using a source. Rublamb (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Organizations&oldid=1262591215"