Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:34, 25 November 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 24	November 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Smith (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable BLP. We have broad consensus that thiel fellows are not inherently notable based on WP:INHERIT and that Forbes "30 under 30" lists do not confer notability. Little is left. There are unresolved questions about notability on the talkpage, and WP:BIO notability criteria are not clearly met. WP:BEFORE yields no (or debatably very little) independent coverage of her at all. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree it's an edge case and the article can def be improved, but for me these three give significant coverage in reliable sources: Wired, Startland, Business Journal Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources rely heavily on interviews with the subject, which seems to work against them being the necessary independent coverage. FalconK (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per WP:BASIC - the article would benefit from clean up and expansion based on available reliable sources, but in some sources with interview content, there is also secondary context and commentary that can support notability, and specifically the 2018 Startland and 2019 Wired articles noted above, as well as Erin Smith is Assembling the Next Generation of Female STEM Innovators (Seventeen, 2020). The bizjournals franchise markets itself as advertising so I do not think it contributes to notability. I also found at least more than a passing mention (a full preview is not available) in Stone, Zara (2020). The Future of Science Is Female: The Brilliant Minds Shaping the 21st Century. Mango Publishing. ISBN 9781642503203., and a brief mention in context in Silverstein, Natalie (2022). Simple Acts: The Busy Teen's Guide to Making a Difference. Free Spirit Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 9781631986284. She has also won a fair amount of notable fellowships and awards, which also seems to help support her notability generally. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wired, Star, and Fox are solid sources. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated my !vote after expanding the article and finding more sources, e.g. Lenexa student catches attention of Michael J. Fox Foundation (Kansas City Star, 2016) (and more coverage in 2017). Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am objecting to "entrepreneur" as the main descriptor for her current occupation is, to me that puts her in WP:TOOSOON category, as she hasn't actually run a business yet. Whereas she already is an established inventor, exact patent status unclear, but winner of the 2022 Young Inventors Prize from the European Patent Office. The distinction to me is that important. There are also Wikipedia editors who will come through and change every occurrence of "entrepreneur" to "businessperson" anyway, and in a way that's even worse for this particular bio. There is no shame in being an inventor – and all the sources are pushing her as a role model for girls and women in STEM. It also doesn't preclude her being a successful entrepreneur in the future. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could talk about it more on the article Talk page - I added a source that was previously in the lead as support for the term. As to WP:TOOSOON, there is WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of her various accomplishments and the development of the FacePrint technology, as well as information about business development. Multiple independent and reliable sources over time report on her as a prodigy, with substantial progress towards developing a marketable product, which seems to support her notability as more than an inventor - she is really developing the product, not just the idea. Beccaynr (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I wasn't trying to say she wasn't developing the product, or that she wasn't a budding entrepreneur. I don't see why it's such a problem to call her "an inventor and entrepreneur" in the lede, or to use the word "developer" alongside the word "founder". We delete BLPs every day about young and not-so-young entrepreneurs who have won prizes and funding and have lots of vanity coverage about them, so it just seems prudent to avoid putting all her eggs in the "entrepreneur" basket, when the coverage actually says she is more than just someone with an idea claiming to be an entrepreneur. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability established by many edits after the AfD was started. Good sourcing in reliable media. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borsari's Corner, Melbourne

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

Fails WP:GNG via WP:GEOROAD - no evidence of fulfilling "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". Only sources found in WP:BEFORE include a website promoting Melbourne, a Facebook group, and a blog. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this record from the University of South Australia, it has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Melbourne (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521842344) but its not viewable on google. There is this page also from the University of Melbourne. This lengthy page is from what is described as a "what's on blog" but is on the official Melbourne government site so can probably be accepted as reliable per WP:NEWSBLOG. There is also this, and finally, it has a poem written about it in a published anthology. SpinningSpark 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources which I've added to the article including an entry in an encyclopedia which for me makes it a non-starter for deletion. Given how slim this article is, I wouldn't be against a merge with Nino Borsari. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. adding on behalf of Lightburst
Keep per WP:NEXIST thanks to Vladimir.copic for adding references to the article. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Central Electric Cooperative

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Current references are non-independent (from the company itself), WP:BEFORE found a routine announcement, trivial mention, and another case study in a debatably reliable source that works with Rural Electric Membership Cooperatives to bring fiber to the home to rural communities, it also likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH, almost quoting entirely from Tim Smith, a manager of East Central Electric Cooperative, in most of its sections. VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Howard (author)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Note only 1 article links to this article. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm finding minimal evidence of notability, though open to being persuaded otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @The Drover's Wife for a fresh read of Ann Howard (author) in light of expansion and additional sources found. (Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a book review of her Cattle Drovers, but there are many other reviews besides.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Changing to keep in light of your excellent rewrite which really clarified her significance. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of notable works on history of Australian Women's Army Service, as well as local Dangar Island history, who easily meets WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC. Article prose has been expanded (while the overly long bibliography has been pared down), with citations. For SIGCOV, would point to the 2018 article about her book A Carefree War in The Australian (access via Gale OneFile/Wikipedia Library); 2003 review of C'mon Over in The Journal of Australian Studies (requires access to Taylor & Francis); and 2018 review of A Carefree War in Agora (Wikipedia Library/EBSCOHost). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Cielquiparle's clean up and expansion. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a clear keep now, plenty coverage as per WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 17:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Innovate Finance

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

WP:PROMOTION. If the organisation if found to meet WP:NORG, then I suggest that draftifying would be appropriate. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-profit organization therefore WP:GNG applies. I'm unable to locate anything about this org that isn't either an announcement, a mention-in-passing or a quote from a member. Fails our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Swingler vs Cherdleys

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

Article previously deleted via XFD (see here), aswell as draftified after the such deletion, both times for failing GNG.

Event does not appear to meet GNG or WP:EVENT. Atleast half of the sources in the article are primary alone, and I didn't find much coverage that qualifies as SIGCOV. I would appreciate some the input of veteran editors for this nomination. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and England. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage that shows WP:GNG is met and there's certainly nothing that shows this battle of youtubers has "enduring historical significance" as stated in WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article shouldn't exist. It should instead be a redirect like to list of influencer boxing matches. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article's creator, I'm not sure if I'm technically allowed to weigh in on the discussion but I'll add my opinion here anyway. Firstly, if the use of primary sources is an issue I can change them to secondary sources conveying the same information, I wasn't aware that was a problem when I made the article. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand why you don't consider the topic as having significant coverage as there are many articles by sports/fighting news outlets (Powcast Sports, MMA Fighting, British Boxing News, Boxing Scene etc.) and local and national UK newspapers (Manchester Evening News, Sheffield Star, Economic Times, Mirror etc.) covering the build up and results of the event. Finally as for the long lasting signifcance of the event, I personally believe it will be remembered for a long time to come as one of the initial wave of fights under the MF & DAZN billing and the professional debut of certain fighters (as well as containing establised names like Anthony Taylor and Slim Albaher).

Feel free to correct me on these points as I'm relatively new and still getting used to wikipedia guidelines. TripleJayDoubleYou (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion via the "internet echo chamber" that found no traction or notability based on search Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Papaursa. The article also has less reliable sources than I hoped it would have. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Smith (entrepreneur)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borsari's Corner, Melbourne}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Central Electric Cooperative}}