Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia: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|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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia'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

Lowepro

Lowepro (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Re-nominating this article 9 years on. Many of the cited sources are merely reviews of products as is typical for manufacturers of goods sold at retail; there are passing mentions of the company here and there, but it lacks the substantial independent third-party coverage in reliable sources that are looked for in WP:NCORP. The page remains heavily weighted toward promotional content and relies for its non-promotional statements mostly on other than reliable sources and press releases. A search for anything that might make it notable, in terms of its impact as a company or any important events it might have played a role in, comes up empty. It's run of the WP:MILL. The previous discussion resulted in no consensus. I suggest it be deleted. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Cool

Nathan Cool (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable individual who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. BEFORE searches do not return sufficient reliable sources. And the sources that are cited in the article (to the extent they can be located at all) are either (1) articles that the individual appears to have simply written (and not about the subject himself) or (2) are self-published/too closely affiliated with the author to warrant an article. Also it appears that the article was created by someone who may be associated with the subject, so that also raises some eyebrows. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cue Health

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

Based on discussion with HighKing at Talk:Cue Health... the entity fails at WP:ORGIND. WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion to generate a wider and unbiased consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe there may be grounds for notability, but the references have to be centered more on the subject and not repeated coverage of the kit (e.g., [1], [2], [3]) Multi7001 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the articles cited involve the subject's developed COVID-19 kit and funding for the health kit, but does not cover the subject itself. The coverage about the kit could make a case for its own page in the articlespace or a merge in the COVID-19 pages. But with regards to the subject (the company), coverage by Forbes indicates some notability [4], as a nearly $2B valuation is very rare for a company; however, the valuation is a direct result of the health kit and not much coverage of the company itself or its founders. It seems like it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Fiber Internet Center

Fiber Internet Center (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Horns Up (radio)

Horns Up (radio) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable one-station radio show fails the WP:GNG. Contested prod by article creator in 2016. It appears to no longer be on the air. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

HotNewHipHop.com

HotNewHipHop.com (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Sources in the article are questionable and doesn't seem reliable. Keep in mind that the last article based on this website was deleted back in 2019. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Amber Lily

Amber Lily (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an singer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for singers. The notability claims here are that she was a non-winning competitor in a singing competition and otherwise just that her work exists, rather than any concrete evidence that she achived anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC -- and while the article also claims that she's an actress, it offers no indication whatsoever that she's ever done anything of note as an actress at all. And for sourcing, two of the six footnotes are to her own self-published website about herself and three more are of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Amazon.com" variety, which are not reliable or notability-building sources. And while there is one footnote to a real piece of media coverage here, it's a very short blurb nowhere near substantive enough to carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Center for Inquiry Investigations Group

Center for Inquiry Investigations 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 · NYT · WP Library)

This article fails WP:NORG and is full of promotional content. While the amount of sources are impressive, they are all complete garbage and spam. I have prepared a SIRS table (which is too large to fit into Twinkle) that individually examines every single source included in the article as of this [5] diff and demonstrates how they all fail WP:SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"CFIIG: About" No The about page for organization See WP:ABOUTSELF Yes No
"POINT OF INQUIRY podcast: Dec. 12, 2019" No Published by parent organization WP:ABOUTSELF Not going to listen to the podcast so won't judge. No
"Do Power Balance wristbands work? - Yahoo! News" No Written by someone working with the CIIIG Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF ? Can't read the article. No
"IIG Power Balance Experiment" No Published by an IIIG affiliate Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't cover the CIIIG itself. No
"Power Bracelets a Bust in IIG Test" No The CFI is the parent organization of the CIIIG Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't cover the CIIIG itself in any significant detail No
Offline source titled "Power Balance Bracelets a Bust in Tests" No Published by the Skeptical Inquirer which is owned by the CFI Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF ? If it's just an offline copy of the previous source it doesn't have sigcov, but I don't want to get a copy of the magazine to find out No
"The Anita Ikonen Report" No Published by IIG West which is a subentity of the subject of the article. Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't cover the organization in detail. No
"Light Bulb Luminosity Demonstration" No Published by the CFI, parent organization of the CIIIG Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself No
"State Sponsored Quackery Feng Shui and Snake Oil for California Nurses" No Skeptical Inquirer is run by the CFI which is the parent organization of the IIG. The contents of this article is also just a report done by the IIG. Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself No
Carla Baron, Psychic Detective? No Published by IIG West Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself No
Offline source titled "Carla Baron, Psychic Detective? Not Quite" No Published in the Skeptical Inquirer, which is owned by the CFI which is teh parent org of the CIIIG Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF Didn't want to make an evaluation as I can't read the article No
Offline source titled "TV psychics John Edward and John Van Praagh" No Also published in the Skeptical Inquirer with all that entails, but the author is also James Underdown, leader of the CIIIG Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF Not going to evaluate as I can't read the offline source No
"How come TV psychics seem so convincing?" Yes Yes The Straight Dope is probably notable No Provides no coverage of the CIIIG itself, just mentions its leader without even mentioning said leader's affiliation with the CIIIG No
"Putting Psychics to the Test" Yes Yes No Blatantly fails the WP:ORGDEPTH requirement that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" do not satisfy ORGDEPTH. The entire article is just an interview with James Underdown, and doesn't even name the IIG as the organization that Underdown was running. No
"Psychic Mutt Discovered!" Note the previous link doesn't work at the time I created this source table, so here's the CFIIG's copy of the story: [6] No Please read WP:ORGIND, this is an example of "dependent coverage" where practically all of the info comes from the subjects themselves. It is also not a secondary source, as it written from the journalist's perspective and describes their experience and what they've directly seen and heard. This makes it a primary source and so fails WP:SIRS Yes No Does not actually provide coverage of the CFIIG. All of the coverage is of the CFI, the parent organization. It mentions James Underdown as being the executive director of the CFI - West but there is not a single mention of the CFIIG/CIIIG/IIG. No
"Skeptoid #372: Prove Your Supernatural Power and Get Rich" Yes No Pretty much the definition of an WP:SPS/self published source. This is just a transcription of someone's self published podcast. No Gives a brief mention of the IIG as an example in a list of organizations that offer prizes if one can prove a paranormal ability. WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly forbids this, saying trivial coverage encompasses "brief or passing mentions, such as: as an example of a type of company or product being discussed" No
"Hex Factor: Inside the Group Offering $250,000 for Proof of Superpowers" Yes No Medium blog post. WP:MEDIUM has had several threads that have deemed it as generally unreliable. Yes No
"IIG Challenge" No Published by IIG West See WP:ABOUTSELF ? Source isn't loading for me, perhaps the internet archive is down. No
"Tyler Henry Still Silent after $250,000 Offer from L.A. Skeptics" No Made by the CFI WP:ABOUTSELF ? Internet archive may be down No
"About the IIG Awards" No Yes No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/index.html "IIG No Yes No
"Skeptics at Annual Awards Ceremony" No Video of the IIG awards being presented by the IIG No Provenance of the video is questionable Not watching this video to find out No
"The Skeptic Zone #206" Yes No Literally a self published podcast Not listening to the entire podcast to find out. No
"Neil deGrasse Tyson inducted into the Houdini Hall of Honor at the IIG Awards" ? I find it hard to believe this is Neil deGrasse Tyson's YouTube channel since the channel hosting the above video has been terminated and Tyson's official channel [7] is still up. And the video, if it's not produced by Tyson, is likely produced by the IIG. No WP:YOUTUBE. ? This is likely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a non-notable award given out by the organization, but as I can't watch the video it's hard to find that out. No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2006/index.html "IIG No No No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2008/index.html "IIG No Not bothering to read this No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2009/20090929_pressrelease.html "IIG No Not bothering to read this No
"IIG Award:Ray Hyman 2011" No Ray Hyman is on the executive council of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry which is in the same organization as the IIG. No This is just Ray Hyman speaking into his phone and directly uploading that video to YouTube. I'm not watching this whole video to find out if it's SIGCOV. No
"The Independent Investigators" ? Can't watch the video anymore No I really doubt this random video on Vimeo is reliable given that I can find no information on "New Pilgrim Productions" anywhere on the internet. ? Video is taken down. No
"Walking with the Psychic Blues" Yes No A self published podcast I am not listening to the entire thing No
"Ross and Carrie Meet Spencer!" I don't know who any of these people are and don't want to dig into them to see if they're independent. No Self published podcast Not listening to nearly 45 minutes of this, but even the article claimed there were only brief mentions of the IIG. No
The included ref is "Ghostbusters: is Hollywood a spiritual 'vortex'?", but I couldn't access that, so I used this republishing [8] as it's a wire service story by AFP. Yes Yes No Literally just two quotes from Mark Edward, a member of the IIG. See WP:ORGDEPTH where "brief or passing mentions, such as: in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," do not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. No
"MTS: Meet Ross Blocher" ? Can't see the source No Guerrilla Skepticism on Gpedia has performed an analysis of "Meet the Skeptics" [9] and labelled as a podcast which consists solely of an interview. This makes it not a reliable source and also not a secondary source. ? Can't actually listen to this podcast. No
"Mark Edward" No The coverage is a lengthy interview of Mark Edward and is neither independent nor is it No Self published zine of some sort. No Barely mentions the IIG. No
"Mark Edward Interview (Be Skeptical Episode 2)" No Video by IIG west Not watching this. No
"MTS: Meet Mark Edward" ? Can't see as internet archive is down No A self published podcast as per [10] ? No
"The Amazing Meeting 2012: James Underdown" No An interview with James Underdown, not very independent of the subject No Just some YouTube video of an interview Not watching the whole thing to see if it's SIGCOV. No
"The Amazing Meeting 2012: Susan Gerbic No An interview with Susan Gerbic, not very independent of the subject No Just some YouTube video of an interview Not watching the whole thing to see if it's SIGCOV. No
Harold Camping 'flabbergasted'; rapture a no-show Yes Yes No Doesn't mention the IIG No
"ReasonFest11" ? Unclear who runs the blog, their about page [11] doesn't give much info. No A blog and WP:SPS, see [12] ? Can't read the source as Internet archive is down No
"James Underdown (3 of 4) @ ReasonFest 2011" No A talk given by James Underdown who runs the IIG Not watching the whole thing No
"Best of Skepticamp Part 1: Mark Edward" No Note that Mark Edward is affiliated with the IIG and this is an interview, so not very independent. It's also a primary source. No This is a podcast ? Can't listen to podcast No
[https://www.oprah.com/own-miracle-detectives/guardian-angel-video-expert-re-creation "Guardian Angel: Video Expert Re-Creation No Video segment done by James Underdown Yes It's a segment on the Oprah Winfrey Network so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt Not watching to find out if significant No
"Glen Ivy: A Study in Rational Decision Making" No Literally an IIG report No No
"SoCal Para Con" ? Can't see on archive.org No Obviously a recorded livestream of a conference, and so no editorial control ? Even if I could see the livestream I wouldn't watch the entire thing to find this out. No
"Weird or What? "Mind Control War" ? ? If it's the discovery channel it's probably reliable No According to the article's description, there's Jim Underdown saying stuff at some point. No
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031121/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/06/04/BadCast-Ep14 "BadCast Ep14 ? Can't see archived version No Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics Wouldn't listen even if I had access No
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031027/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/03/26/BadCast-Ep04 "BadCast Ep04 ? Can't see archived version No Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics Wouldn't listen even if I had access No
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031010/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/03/13/BadCast-Ep02 "BadCast Ep02 ? Can't see archived version No Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics Wouldn't listen even if I had access No
"#46 The Independent Investigations Group" ? Don't want to do research but the article mentions that the IIG was involved in the podcast No A self published podcast Wouldn't listen even if I had access No
"The IIG Awards" No Yes No
"KCET Article". While I couldn't read the above source I found the IIG's description: [13] No The coverage appeared to consist of mostly interviews with IIG members, so neither independent nor secondary. Yes Yes No
"Skeptic Check: Diluted Thinking; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptic Check: Conspiracy; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptic Check: Superstition; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptic Check: Playing Doctor; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptic Check: ESP or Think Again; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptic Check: Sheer Lunacy; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptical Sunday: is Ignorance Bliss?; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Skeptical Sunday: Take a Number; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV No
"Penn & Teller: Bullsh**!: Talking to the Dead Episode Summary on" ? tv.com is user-generated content No tv.com is user-generated content ? Site is down No
"Penn & Teller Bullshit! Season 1 Episode 1:Talking to the Dead (1/3) " The video itself was copyright claimed but this is just James Underdown appearing on the show with Mark Edward. The coverage of them isn't independent No It's not exactly a neutral or academic source. No Highly doubt their interview meets SIGCOV. No
"Dowsing Truth or Trickery" ? Can't see the source itself anymore. Yes Judging by the URL, probably. No The claim made is that James Underdown appeared on an NBC News show. This isn't SIGCOV. No
"Divining Water: Dowsers in Big Demand During California Drought" Yes Yes No James Underdown isn't even mentioned in this source! No
"A scientific approach to the paranormal" Yes No It's a Ted talk and is a self published source No Carrie Poppy briefly mentions the IIG during her Ted talk as an example of an organization that gives out prizes to mystics No
"Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II" No The Skeptical Inquirer is owned by the same parent entity (the CFI) as the IIG WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't even mention the IIG Briefly mentions the IIG in an interview question and a photo caption. No
Offline source called "CFI Investigations Group Raises Paranormal Challenge Prize to $250,000" published in the Skeptical Inquirer No It's the Skeptical Inquirer and isn't independent See WP:ABOUTSELF Can't see the offline source. No
"Guest Editorials" No "The Odds Must Be Crazy" was a blog or something published by the IIG See WP:ABOUTSELF ? Dunno since the site is down No
"The Odds Must Be Crazy" No This is the Facebook page that The Odds Must Be Crazy allegedly maintains No There's no proof this is even run by the The Odds Must Be Crazy so it's not even WP:ABOUTSELF reliable Yes No
"Episode: August 19th, 2014" No Extent of the coverage is that The Odds Must Be Crazy has a recurring segment on this podcast It's a podcast but maybe WP:ABOUTSELF No No
"Episode 181: Unnatural Evolution Is A Funny Thing" No Extent of the coverage is that The Odds Must Be Crazy has a recurring segment on this podcast It's a podcast but maybe WP:ABOUTSELF No No
"Skepticality Episode 181: The Odds Must be Crazy" No This is "The Odds Must Be Crazy" giving their take or something on the podcast. Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF? ? Can't read the source No
Table created using {{source assess table}}

Survey

  • Thank you Chess for putting in the work to produce that table. A news google search only lists 9 results, from either what appears to be unreliable sources or failing WP:ORGDEPTH. Google search results show wiki pages overwhelmingly for the first 2 or so pages, and then no reliable sources for the next few (I can't be bothered to look for more pages, a 6 page google search is all I did). I'll wait for a few days to give time for others to find sources just in case, but so far I don't see evidence of notability myself. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 21:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I do not have anywhere near the time necessary to verify the accuracy of all this data, but as odds would have it, I checked two randomly and found one error. "Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II" does in fact include a discussion of IIG activities. (Search IIG.) Rp2006 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    It contains a single question in an interview, which makes it a primary source, and it's still not independent, so does not contribute to notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Honestly I was getting tired by that point. Sorry I missed the question "I understand you were part of the IIG test, testing a Flat-Earth in cooperation with Flat-Earthers?" in a magazine published by the CFI. Anyways, you don't really have to "verify the accuracy of all this data". You just have to give us two or more sources that satisfy WP:SIRS. The person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me since I have to do that in order to make an AfD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    By the way, good work on the WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry if I don't accept the soundness of your statement that "the [only] person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me." This is especially true now that I pointed out an error, which you have not (yet) corrected. 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    As the source is not independent, the error does not affect the subsequent assessment of GNG.A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 05:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Rp2006: I didn't go back to modify it since it's effectively part of a timestamped comment, and going back to change it now would alter the meaning which would result in any reader not fully understanding what prompted this thread. Usually I only do this if it's really egregious or nobody has responded. But I'll go modify it now since you requested. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per the source analysis, because I don't see two WP:GNG/WP:NORG sources. Levivich 03:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment There is another error in the source analysis. OneZero is not a blog. It is a journalistic publication owned by Medium. From their website:

    OneZero is a publication from Medium about the impact of technology on people and the future. Our editorial team is also behind Debugger, a publication about gadgets, and Future Human, a science publication about the survival of our species. As a journalistic publication owned by Medium, OneZero maintains editorial independence over the stories it publishes on the Medium platform. Medium’s business interests and investors have no bearing on our work. We avoid conflicts of interest and, where unavoidable, disclose them. OneZero employees do not have any financial stake in the companies they cover and may not act on nonpublic information for personal gain or the gain of friends and family. Though we make every effort to be accurate in our reporting, when we are wrong, we acknowledge and correct our mistakes. We do not accept gifts, and we pay for or return products that we review. All articles published on OneZero, including those by staff, expert contributors, and freelance reporters, are subject to editing and fact-checking for accuracy by OneZero’s editorial staff.

    You could try to make a case that it's not reliable at RSN, but you'd probably lose that battle. I think it's easy to see "medium" in the URL and immediately dismiss something as a blog post. That's not the case here. Medium employs paid journalists and editors for a smattering of professional publications that it hosts on its website. That's one of them. AlexEng(TALK) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    The first relevant thread at the linked RSP entry deals with this issue more or less: Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Article by established journalist in Medium publication_with_editorial_staff Not much consensus ensued though. I read the mission statement and didn't really see the proof of reliability above a blog. I can't submit a correction, for instance, and I'm unsure how their editorial process works. Seems like they just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" that can arbitrarily approve/change/deny stories. [14] None of them actually list on their profile that they're an editor for OneZero, most list that they work for Medium and one lists "former lead editor, Forge at Medium" which is confusing since from her profile she hasn't updated in months but still has editorial access? Why haven't they removed her by now if she doesn't work for Medium? It's also kind of unclear how this "editorial independence" exists when most of the editors list their affiliation as being with the parent company; which implies they're not very independent. From my experience serious journalists are very particular about listing their specific affiliation. For instance, journalists will always say they work at "Bloomberg News" and not "Bloomberg". Or the The Athletic versus the NYTimes company. Those who work in the former are very particular that they don't work for the latter, even though the latter is the parent entity. Though this is just anecdotal and isn't much to base an actual assessment on but it's part of why I judged it initially as a blog that Medium threw some money and employees at, rather than a serious journalistic endeavour. Perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment, but that was my somewhat informed belief when I made the SIRS table (probably should've gone into more detail) and it wasn't an inadvertent error on my part. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not much consensus is a weird takeaway from that thread. Jytdog never responded to clarifications regarding the nature of re:form, and he is the only person in that thread complaining. Jytdog is an editor whom I have (had?) great respect for, but he could be a bit dismissive and stubborn when it came to challenges to his decisions. It's not clear to me from that thread that we should be dismissive here of a journalistic publication based solely on the other avenues of business for the parent company of that publication. I also think that your above suspicion that Medium just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" is extremely weird. I'm going to assume in good faith that that was just a gut reaction and not actually what you believe. Medium is not unreliable because the company is somehow biased or shady. Medium is unreliable because anyone can create self-published content on their platform. That is not the case for their owned publications, like OneZero, which are legitimate journalistic organizations. Journalists are more reliable because they are paid by their company, not less. As Rhoark said in the thread you linked:

    Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up "publications" which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if: a) The editors and writers have prior journalism experience, or other relevant expertise; b) The writers are paid; c) The editors are medium.com staff or endorsed by them

    These all seem to be true for OneZero as well, and I agree with that assessment. AlexEng(TALK) 09:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't really see it to be a legit journalistic organization at the time based on the fact almost all the editors list their affiliation as "Medium" and not the actual journalistic organization (i.e. saying they work for "OneZero"). Same with the lack of way to submit corrections. Haven't seen other news organizations do that in the past as they have a very clear separation between news and the rest of the business as well as an email address to send angry letters to. Plus people will acknowledge that they work for the publication and not the parent entity. Didn't really feel like there was a bunch of effort put into "OneZero" and while the mission statement is nice I didn't really see it being a real journalistic organization; more like a blog run by the Medium company. While it's a very nice blog and Medium maybe isn't a biased/shady company I still think it's a blog; because why else wouldn't any of the editors proclaim that they work at "OneZero" in their Medium bios? It would make sense for them to do that if their full time gig was being an editor rather than just having to manage a blog as an extra job duty. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely sure if you're implying that Medium threw the janitor and the IT guy at a publication and called them "editors". Medium is a website that owns several publications. Medium is also a self-publishing platform. "Publications" is also a feature of Medium which allows editorial control for content. OneZero is a publication in which the editorial board consists of Medium employees employed as the Medium Editorial Group whose job it is to curate content and exercise editorial judgment. I don't think there's a restriction that a particular employee can only be the editor for one publication at a time, though you'll note that one of the editors is the "former lead editor" for Forge, which is another Medium-owned publication. If you want to submit a correction, you contact the editors or the author. That's the nature of how their platform works. If you were hoping for like "onezero@medium.com" or something, I'm not sure if that exists or not. I also think you're playing fast and loose with the term "blog" at this point. At what point are you just describing a journalistic publication without saying the words "journalistic publication"? I'm not particularly suspicious of the editors or of Medium (website)'s motives in editorial decisions for their publications. Do you have some reason to be? AlexEng(TALK) 10:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment I have one more comment to add about your analysis of the Chicago Tribune (CT) piece. By the way, the link is broken and the article is not on archive.org, but you can read it here. It does not violate the part of WP:ORGDEPTH that you [mis]quoted, but it still might be trivial coverage. The full statement in the orgdepth example is intended to read: brief or passing mentions, such as in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.[emphasis mine] That's not saying that a source that quotes a member of the organization, even extensively, cannot qualify as a source for the purposes of determining sigcov. It's saying that if the only mention of the organization is as the source of a quotation for the article, then that's not significant coverage. To clarify what I mean, let me give an example. Let's say, hypothetically, that Randy Savage is alive and has quit wrestling, only to start working at Arthur and Son Family Widget Company. Arthur & Son is not notable just because Savage works there, per WP:INHERITORG, and is not otherwise notable by any criteria. Now let's say Arthur & Son fires Savage for allegedly eating their widgets straight off the assembly line. A news publication later runs a story about Savage and his crippling widget-eating addiction that has now landed him in rehab. A quote in the middle of the article, attributed to the president of Arthur & Son, reads, "we just had to let him go. We were losing so many widgets." That is the passing mention that the guideline is talking about in its example. You can't create Arthur and Son Family Widget Company based on a couple of articles using that quotation as sources for notability. The CT column, on the other hand, is not attributing a quote to Underdown in his capacity as a member of CFIIG. The column is clearly about Underdown's investigative work as part of that outfit. However, it may still qualify as trivial coverage. The column is really short, and CFIIG is not mentioned by name; it's only referred to as a "team of investigators". The whole article is not "just an interview" with Underdown, although the author clearly interviewed Underdown as part of their research for the piece. If it were just an interview, it might call into question whether it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which is not something that you noted in your table above. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, but it gives some pretty good advice on how to evaluate a source that includes interview material as primary or secondary. To be secondary, a source should contain transformative thoughts, rather than just parroting what the interviewee said, with the irrelevant (in this case) exception of when the interviewee is speaking as a subject matter expert on their field of study. Anyway, this turned out longer than I expected, but the bottom line is that I'm not particularly convinced in either direction with respect to whether or not this source is appropriate for use in qualifying the subject for WP:GNG and by syllogism WP:NORG. AlexEng(TALK) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Weird, the link works fine for me. Though it was pretty much just an interview with Underdown with little additional information (he didn't seem to contact anyone else) and is just based on quoting the guy as a story source. And to be honest I thought this was a transcribed TV news segment of some kind when I first read it since it had double hyphens instead of dashes (in the link on their website), the writing style, and the fact it's a TV journalist who is attributed as the author. Thought "oh this is one of those segments where the guy does the lead-in, interviews guy for a while, explain what guy said/will say, cuts back to new interview, elaborate, back again, so on so forth until hit the reader with kicker, it's done". It reads a heck of a lot differently with less emphasis on the interview in my head when I'm not imagining it as a TV news segment where the interview is the central part. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The Tribune piece is about debunking, not the organization. The author uses someone from the organization to talk about that. There really isn't anything in-depth about the organization itself that wasn't provided by the organization itself (or the person being interviewed). This wouldn't pass WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are several issues, but addressing notability alone the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Quessenberry

Paul Quessenberry (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Coverage about this player is of the routine variety. Does not meet WP:GNG, and apparently, and he may or may not meet WP:GRIDIRON, as the Football Reference says he took a snap, but both it and nfl.com say he played zero seconds. Onel5969 TT me 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, meets NGRIDIRON. Also, I do not see where you're saying its "0 seconds". It was 18 snaps, each of which takes multiple seconds. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    • NFL.com also says he played in a game, so I do not see how you're getting "0 seconds". BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • And, like nearly every other NFL player ever, Quessenberry appears to meet GNG. See SIGCOV such as [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Maybe there's some confusion here with the "GS" ("games started") stat? (Or one of his admittedly many other "0" stats.) Why would NGRIDIRON in itself be grounds for a "speedy" keep? Or at least, the part of GRIDIRON other than the part of that guideline which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." This does appear to be the case, though you'd be forgiven for missing it from the article at time of AfD nomination, which essentially made no actual claim of notability whatsoever. "He was elevated to the active roster for Week 16 and played one snap on offense and 17 snaps on special teams in his NFL debut." --CBSsports, which is maybe a somewhat better source than most of those offered above (if CBS itself confers any source-reliability on its sports website). Seems fairly marginal thus far on GNG; USA Today at least is a "perennial" reliable source, so maybe that gets it over the line. Possibly ironically, given that article's "what a weird signing" take on him. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For SIGCOV, see here/here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article says He made his NFL debut in week 16 against the Los Angeles Chargers, appearing on 18 snaps in the 41–29 win. So he meets WP:NGRIDIRON as a player who has appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in the NFL. KidAdSPEAK 19:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Keep per comments above. Nothing really needs to be added here. He clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON, which is more inclusive, but he also, in my opinion, meets WP:GNG per BeanieFan11 and Cbl62's more than adequate research. Spf121188 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: easily meets NGRIDIRON Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep As a clear NGRIDIRON pass. Also meets GNG per Cbl62. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons stated above. Can't find any reason for this article to be deleted. XtraJovial (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Worship Leader (magazine)

Worship Leader (magazine) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I nominated this for deletion back in 2020 because it lacked notability. Unfortunately no one voted in the AfD and it closed as no consensus. So I'm re-nominating it now since from what I can tell nothing has changed about it since then. To summarize, what this comes down to for me is that the article has only been referenced to a single primary source since 2013 and I can't find anything about it anywhere that would work for notability. Nor could I when I originally nominated it. Especially if this is considered an article about a company and therefore has to pass WP:NCORP. Which I think it is and should. I'm not super up on what reputable, in-depth resources exist for articles related to Christian subjects or magazines though. So maybe someone can find sources I missed. If any are found, they should follow the notability guidelines from the gate and not be trivial, primary, or anything else that the guidelines say shouldn't be used for determining notability. Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Anacor

Anacor (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I nominated this for deletion in 2000 due to what I saw as a lack of notability at the time and it was kept. Although the main crux of the keep votes came down to insulting me over the nomination, saying it must be notable because it it developed two FDA approved drugs, or similar WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING arguments. No one that voted keep really discussed the sourcing except to provide a couple of extremely trivial ones that related to them being bought out by Pfizer and an article that has to do with a compound in one of their drugs that has nothing to do with them except for saying in the article that they came up with it. Both of which are extremely WP:MILL. As drug companies routinely create pharmaceutical compounds and get bought out by other drug companies. So, I'm re-nominating this in the hopes that a better consensus, based on an actual discussion about the companies notability or lack of it, can occur this time around. Hopefully without the insults and other nonsense that occurred in the last discussion.

Just to throw it out there, in the original AfD I suggested redirecting or merging this to Pfizer as an ATD. I still think that doing so is a good option compared to doing nothing. Since there is some coverage of the company, even if it's extremely trivial. I just don't think there is enough to justify a stand alone article though. So I'm fine with anyone voting merge or redirect if they think it's justified compared to deleting the article outright.Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shellwood: Do you happen to know why the "AfDs for this article" sidebox includes articles that have nothing to do with this one in it? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lucra Cars

Lucra Cars (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable company that fails to meet WP:NCOMPANY, as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. WP:SIRS isn’t applicable, there is no WP:ORGDEPTH, a before search shows me no cogent sources, I see predominantly user generated sources, vendor sources, self published sources and a few press releases all of which we do no consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Arella Devorah

Arella Devorah (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 · NYT · WP Library)

American singer who doesn't seem to meet WP:NSINGER. Created by a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI. John B123 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Bettina Devin

Bettina Devin (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I can only find one interview, in something called Rivetting Riffs Magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Dan Dinh

Dan Dinh (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No claim of significance aside from being the COO of a company and the brother of a notable former esports player. I could not find any secondary or tertiary sources for this individual, and this article is only sourced by primary sources which do not attest as to why this individual is notable. CentreLeftRight 21:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: not notable person, poorly sourced. Ctrlwiki (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Team SoloMid. Fails WP:BIO per nom and WP:INHERIT. SBKSPP (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote per BriefEdits's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Seems like he's big in the scene but struggles with sources that Gpedia finds to be reliable (I.e. reputable publications, non-interviews, etc.). As most coverage appears to be related to Team SoloMid, a redirect will probably be more useful than a delete. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Team SoloMid. Search suggests that he is the COO of the company and a part of their roster. --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Team SoloMid. As the Chief Operating Officer, he is sufficiently notable to warrant a redirect even if a lack of sources demonstrate insufficient notability for a standalone article. Such-change47 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

YugabyteDB

YugabyteDB (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not enough notability shown. Unambiguous advert. Tame (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Tame Why is this not notable? There are three companies in the NewSQL/Distributed SQL database market. These are TiDB, Cockroach and Yugabyte. The Cockroach page has fewer references, is mainly marketing and doesn't show why it is notable The TiDB page has references almost exclusively back to the vendors site and is basically a list of features they want to push The former YugabyteDB page that was taken down was nothing to do with me and was clearly written from marketing material however I believe that what I have written covers the topic seriously and with relevant references for a fast growing $1Bn company - Please look at https://db-engines.com/en/ranking to see Cockroach at position 58, TiDB at 95 and Yugabyte at 121 of 351 databases and many of the database entries below in the ranking page have wikipedia entries

I am happy to add any content that you think will demonstrate this to be more notable - I have already added the rapid funding rounds and growth and will add anything else you suggest. Datamgmt (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talkcontribs) 01:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: (on balance at present with possible need to WP:STUBIFY) Nominator has indicated they feel not enough notability is shown which I take to mean they believe product is notable. And it isn't an unambiguous advert to me as I which to know the products capability. That says there is a horrible apparent lack of sourcing on some sections. May need to be stubified and I'd like [[User:|Datamgmt]] to produce, per WP:THREE, the three best WP:RS sources. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Since nomination I have found the time to add another 30 references in most sections, however that work needs to continue. A special call out to Djm-leighpark for pointing out that it is the references that would help make the product more notable. These additional references mean that at the time of writing there are 7 academic publications, 27 news sources 9 general web pages and 20 from the product page (up from zero as they refer to specific features - in the same way as the TiDB website does - I originally omitted these as I was trying to find extra references for absolutely everything - however when it comes to some of the descriptions of how it functions they can only be found on the company pages 'More citations needed' and/or 'incubation' may have been more appropriate tags as I have clearly been working on it regularly as time allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talkcontribs) 17:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer Howe

Spencer Howe (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG and no evidence that he meets WP:NSPORTS in that he didn't win his national championships. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 03:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hergilei Draftifying the article might be a solution in the interim. The fact remains that he doesn't meet the GNG criteria, and unless new sources come about, should not have an article. There just isn't any source that cover the guy except to say "he exists and he competed at these few places", of these, none has significant coverage. Not enough is available to write an encyclopedia article on a person, only a sports statistics page. There are plenty of those elsewhere. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 23:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sophie Simone Cortina

Sophie Simone Cortina (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG. Found the article after being curious who voiced Curie in Fallout 4, saw the tags, looked around, and while she seems to have lived a very interesting life, that isn't the criteria. I don't see where she has significant coverage in reliable sources. Lot of mentions of her products by people who sell them, but that isn't WP:RS. There is an interesting claim about being a top 20 tennis player in Mexico, but I don't find the sources to back it up. The article is mainly just primary links, which is not acceptable for a WP:BLP. In short, not notable enough to include at this time. Dennis Brown - 02:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Brian Warren

Brian Warren (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:MMABIO, hasn't fought in almost 9 years, and is in his late 40s marking a return to MMA competition unlikely. Coverage I've found has shown that he opened his own gym, and wrote a book, though I doubt this is enough to pass WP:GNG ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Subject passes NMMA having 3 fights in top tier promotion (1 in Strikeforce (2006) and 2 in Bellator in 2012 and 2013 where both Strikefore and ellator were considered top tier during those years). Cassiopeia talk 08:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Its about whether he passes GNG or not, NMMA is irrelevant here. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The important thing is that he fails to meet WP:GNG. He did have 3 top tier fights, but he lost them all and his highest ranking was #171, which is not surprising for someone who won half his fights. Listings in databases, routine fight coverage, and the bio from his gym do not count as significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Vungle Inc.

Vungle 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 · NYT · WP Library)

This was flagged for speedy deletion, but has been contested. I think it's a straightforward WP:A7 case—just being sold for a large sum doesn't create notability if nobody talks about the sale, and the sources aren't what one would call great—but bringing it here in case anyone thinks it's salvageable.  ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Added two more notable sources mentioning the deal, techcrunch and business insider. Not sure if it's notable enough. All ok if the decision is deletion, no probs :-) --Taiko (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable company which fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain)

Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

A web search only gives databases like the one used as the article's only source, primary sources, and fandom wikis. No signs of notability. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    22:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Six Flags Magic Mountain – Some editors in the past used to weigh in on these discussions claiming that all coaster installations are inherently notable, but I'm from a different camp. Coasters like this one will never have any coverage in reliable sources other than the day they were added to (or removed from) the park, barring any major incidents during its time in operation. Coverage of these insignficant rides should be relegated solely to the article of the amusement park where they reside. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Zymergen

Zymergen (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Case of WP:PROMO /WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

An entity having a page in a different language is not a gaurantee for it having an English wikipedia page. -Hatchens (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The point is there is at least some level of encyclopedic international coverage already to support the argument for notability. The article is not promotional or advertising per your nomination, it should be kept. - Indefensible (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep There are several Forbes staff,[21] CNBC,[22] Bloomberg,[23][24] San Francisco Business Journal,[25][26][27] and Barron's[28] articles about the company. It looks like the company had a dramatic rise and fall, not unlike Theranos.[29] The page only has 2 of these sources currently, and no information about its issues over the past year. I'm going to edit it to make some improvements. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The CNBC source and the two bloomberg sources, at least, are routine "line goes up, line goes down" coverage that's useful for stock trading but doesn't place the company in any particular historical context. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent sources were mentioned by BuySomeApples that clearly proves notability. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing written about this company or its failure outside of the business press, with the vast bulk of coverage in reliable sources being routine stock trading coverage. Nowhere near the depth of coverage as the collapse of a company like Theranos. It's not even comparable; Zymergen has little said about it anywhere other than analyst notes. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    Reliable sources from business press are what should be expected for a business article. That is still enough to qualify for encyclopedic coverage. What sort of coverage do you expect for a business otherwise? - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Evolove

Evolove (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NBAND. Article makes several claims of notability, cannot verify any of them. Of the sources, only one mentions the band and it is a probable PR piece. Band's website is now in Chinese. No reliable sources in web search. This was an aspiring band that probably didn't make it past 2012 Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I would just like to note that Evolove has released 4 albums in 2018.[1] I don't have any other opinions about this article's deletion. ShockedAwe (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the number of albums released does not mean notability. Rogermx (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Crystal Kung Minkoff

Crystal Kung Minkoff (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Reality show performer. Not enough in-depth coverage outside of the show to show they have any notability outside the production. Should probably be a redirect, but was reverted. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Impact100 Sonoma

Impact100 Sonoma (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I wrote this Gpedia article when I first moved to the Sonoma area. Now, I think it might fail WP:NORG because it's only featured in localized press coverage.

Thoughts? Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Isaiah Reid

Isaiah Reid (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Soccer player who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Existing news coverage comes almost exclusively from local press and a primary source (his university's website). BlameRuiner (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - the award they won doesn't qualify for NCOLLATH, and they do not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep – meets WP:COLLATH for winning national award. Rylesbourne (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Technology Innovations in Statistics Education

Technology Innovations in Statistics Education (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I PRODded on the grounds that it didn't appear to be indexed in SCOPUS or anywhere selective, but Liz noted a 2009 PROD that I'd missed, so we're here. Star Mississippi 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Barton (filmmaker)

Proposed deletions


for occasional archiving


<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FCalifornia">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/California&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>