Jump to content

User:Jtrrs0/sandbox/AfDprep/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

AfD for William Rawn Associates

Link to discussion.

Permalink to its closed state

The result was delete, after one relisting.

Source Assessment

I am performing a source assessment for William Rawn Associates as my prima facie analysis showed the sources were insufficient to establish notability.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Harvard Graduate School of Design
 No The source is a profile of the founder in his role as an academic member of staff; these profiles are often self-created Yes Harvard is probably a reliable source No It provides merely a passing mention of the company. The directory cited is merely a directory of the staff's profiles and passes no commentary or analysis on the company. ✘ No
New York Times
 Yes There seems to be no connection between the company and the NYT's coverage Yes NYT is a reliable secondary source No The article makes no mention of the firm ✘ No
Wall St Journal
 No In so far as it relates to the firm it seems to be deriving its information solely from an interview with the partner Yes WSJ is reliable secondary source No The company is mentioned merely in passing as the architects of a project in the context of an article talking about something unrelated to the firm. ✘ No
Architect Magazine
 No The article relies on quotes and interviews with the firm No Same as above. Article relies heavily on quotes from the partners. ~ The article itself does focus on the Company, but it is in the context of a list of 50 architects' firms which is not really significant coverage as such. ✘ 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}}.

On the basis of the above, I submitted William Rawn Associates to AfD. (18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC))

(Archived. Jtrrs0 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC))

Nicky Gumbel

On a cursory reading the article make little claim as to why this priest is notable.

On further reflection and consideration, and after analysing WP:PEOPLE and WP:CLERGY, it has become obvious that, while not meeting WP:CLERGY's usual outcomes or many of the WP:ANYBIO criteria it does probably meet WP:AUTHOR due to Alpha course and thus qualifies as meeting WP:ANYBIO for becoming an enduring part of the historical record. Will not nominate. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Preliminary Investigation Only) 16:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC) Edited and corrected 16:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Organization for Youth Empowerment

Link to discussion

I found this AfD and decided to make a SAT to help:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
La Prensa
 ~ The article relies heavily on quotes from related persons but perhaps not exclusively? it is impossible to be sure it is completely independent, but it may be. Yes La Preens seems to be a serious Honduran newspaper Yes The article relates exclusively to the Organisation ~ Partial
OYE Website
 No Self-evident that the organisation's website is not independent. No Ditto, OYE's own website. Is a primary source. Yes They give themselves significant coverage ✘ No
Student Newspaper of Augustana College
 No Relies exclusively on quotes ~ It is difficult to be sure of a student paper's reliability. Doubtful but not clearly an unreliable source. Yes While the article is about an alumna of the college, it gives OYE significant coverage of its mission and operations. ✘ 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}}.

On the basis of this table I think it should be deleted, unless new sources arise.

Archived. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD for London Mint Office

Link to discussion

Found this AfD. Source analysis:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No It's LMO's parent company ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
No The DMA seems to be a paid register of companies such that the information is obtained from LMO No It's a paid directory Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
No It's a press release No It's a press release Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
No LMO's support page is not independent of itself ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
No LMO's support page is not independent of itself ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
No LMO's terms and conditions are not independent of each other ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
No LMO's own accounts are not independent of it ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Irrelevant given it's non-independent ✘ No
Yes There appears to be no connection to LMO Yes Seems to be a local/regional newspaper and the article does not appear to rely solely on quotes and it is written by a journalist with a byline. No The article is mainly about a local resident who was commissioned by the LMO to design a coin. While it does mention other coins by LMO, its coverage of them is arguably no more than trivial. ✘ No
Link has WP:ROTTED away Link has WP:ROTTED away Link has WP:ROTTED away ? Unknown
Link has WP:ROTED away Link has WP:ROTED away Link has WP:ROTED away ? Unknown
~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive ~ While per WP:HUFFPO it is generally considered reliable for non-political topics, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question. No The article barely mentions LMO and then only in the context of a tour organised by its parent company. ✘ No
~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive and the mention that the LMO is giving away replicas at the bottom of the article also raise suspicions. ~ While the Daily Telegraph is usually WP:GREL, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question. No The article barely mentions LMO and then only in the context of a tour. ✘ No
Yes There seems to be no connection with LMO The website is a local news outlet but this article has no byline but instead refers to the editorial team which makes judging the reliability difficult. No It gives LMO a passing mention. ✘ No
Yes No apparent connection with LMO No It is a PR company No Irrelevant because it is unreliable but in any case it fails to mention LMO ✘ No
~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive. ~ The article is in a local newspaper with a byline, but the relevant information relies on quotes. No The article has no non-trivial mentions of LMO. ✘ No
Link has WP:ROTTED away completely. Link has WP:ROTTED away completely. Link has WP:ROTTED away completely. ? Unknown
~ The parts of the video that mention LMO are primary material. ~ While BBC is WP:GREL, the LMO-relevatn material is primary. No LMO is only given trivial coverage in gifting the couple a coin. ✘ No
Yes ITV is reputable British newscaster. Note that the video is posted at LMO's own channel. Given that the video has been reposted to LMO's own channel it is impossible to assess its reliability. No Nonetheless, it gives LMO merely trivial coverage, concentrating instead on the damnbusters ✘ No
Yes No connection to LMO. Yes BBC is WP:GREL No While the headline seems to lead with LMO's donation, the article concentrates on something else and barely mentions the LMO ✘ No
Sussex World
 No The article relies solely on quotes. ~ The relevant material are LMO quotes but it is otherwise a local newspaper with bylines. Irrelevant because not independent. ✘ No
No The article relies solely on quotes for the relevant material. ~ The relevant material are LMO quotes but it is otherwise a local newspaper with bylines. Irrelevant because not independent. ✘ No
~ No apparent connection between LMO and the source. However, the relevant LMO material is mostly derived from an ad by them. ~ While it is a trade news site, it is written with a byline and with apparent editorial standards. The material relevant to LMO is from an ad of theirs. No No significant coverage other than their advertising. ✘ No
No The article relies solely on quotes for the relevant material. ~ While the Daily Telegraph is usually WP:GREL, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question. No While it is irrelevant due to the lack of independence, the coverage is also trivial ✘ No
~ Possibly somewhat independent, but relies heavily on quotes No it is a blog and it relies heavily on quotes Irrelevant due to independence concerns and lack of reliability ✘ 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}}.

Draft Published comment:

  • Delete. I will confess that I initially found it slightly odd that this article was nominated and that the emerging consensus seemed to be to delete. Every few months I get bombarded by their ads so I assumed they were notable. I thus decided to make a thorough source assessment table (see below) to look into whether they were actually notable. The inescapable conclusion is that they are not. As can be seen from the table below, 24 sources were analysed in depth of which 21 were still accessible (3 had WP:ROTTED away). The vast majority fell at the hurdles of independence or reliability. Some were particularly egregious like press releases and financial accounts. While I was surprised to conclude that this company fails WP:SIRS, there seems to be no single independent, reliable and significance coverage out there, let alone multiple such sources. There were two sources that were closer(er) to meeting the guidelines and which merit a particular mention here to head off any possible argument. These were the Times Colonist Article [1] and The BBC news article [2]. While these sources could arguably be independent and reliable, their coverage is woefully trivial. They merely mention LMO in passing and cannot be said to represent significant coverage. I also searched for more sources and could not find any. Please let me know (by pinging me) if more sources appear of if you disagree with the assessment I made. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Kingdom of Balkhara

Link to discussion

Found this AfD and sought to analysed its sources that I could read.

Sources

2. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php

3. http://www.zeno.org/Brockhaus-1809/B/Die+Bucharei

  • No mention of Balkhara. Is in German.

4.http://www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/A/Baktrien

  • No mention of Balkhara. Is in German.

(Archived) Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Campaign for an Independent Britain

Link to Discussion

Prelim investigation

I have doubts as to whether this article is truly notable. I have found a source that might be appropriate but it is unclear.

  • Current source [3] is useless. No claim to notability or even mention of CIB.
  • Should it be WP:ORG? Other than WP:ORGCRIT N can be established through WP:CLUB, ie National Scope and WP:SIGCOV. 18:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Churchill College: R? Y; I? Y; S: no. It name drops but that is it.
  • Cherwell Opinion piece: I: Suspect, relies heavily on quotes but not for the small part relating to he OCIB; R: Meh, student paper; S: not really. Provides coverage of the birth of the Oxford CIB in the 90s.
  • FT: Pure derivative from above. Ditto Guardian piece by same journalist. Interesting but not really relating to the CIB.

18:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't but conclude that there seem to be no reliable sources. 18:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft nomination for AfD:

This article makes no claim for notability in its current sources under either WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CLUB as a non-commercial organisation. The current source is a letter by a former official and clearly fails. I searched for independent and reliable sources and found none that I could confirm give it significant coverage. All were trivial mentions of it or of what appears at best to be its Oxford chapter. I did find one that could potential mention it, but it is behind a pay wall. In any case one source would not be enough and thus this article ought to be deleted. I nominated rather than proposed as I expect it to could be controversial given the recent pattern of COI and POV editing. (Nominated Jtrrs0 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)).

Oxford Sources Three new sources re the Oxford branch that I had not explicitly analysed arose.

  • Spectator: It does mention the OCIB and seems to make the link between the CIB and OCIB explicit. Nonetheless it is not significant coverage nor independent. It is a namedrop in a quote.
  • NYT: Cannot access.
  • The Guardian, S Knight: Heavy reliance on quotes, and reliability issues exist but provisionally happy to call it both independent and reliable. Not so convinced about significant coverage of CIB. It's borderline at best and it is really concentrating on Hannan's role in the OCIB. (15:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC))

Newspaper sources

  • Telegraph clipping: I&R y; questionable whether there is significant coverage. It does provide a source for the claim that it is "non-party" but very questionable whether it is providing significant coverage of it, or of the phenomenon of 90s Sloane ranger euroskepticism. In my view it is no SC. 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • 90s Editorial Clipping, R. Brown Probably independent from CIB, indeed it is hostile to it; but certainly not reliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL, it is an openly hostile opinion piece. It is also questionable, though admittedly more borderline, whether it even gives CIB SC. 11:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus was Keep. Rightly given the new sources that appeared. Archived. Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD for LesserEvil

PROD

PROD for LesserEvil

Proposed LesserEvil for deletion. If you found this page because I linked it in the proposal, please find the assessment table and my commentary of it below:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away ? Unknown
Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away ? Unknown
Yes No apparent connection with LesserEvil No It is a blog dedicated to promoting dieting methods and recipes. No Does not mention the company, only one of its products. ✘ No
No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list ✘ 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}}.

12:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Commentary:

None of the sources count towards establishing notability. Regarding the rotted links, I tried to find whether I could repair them or find other coverage on the same website and in both cases I failed. For the Dr Oz link I did find another mention of one of the company's products but even if this was siginificant coverage that could establish notability of the product, which is doubtful, per WP:PRODUCT it has no impact on establishing notability for LesserEvil. Lastly, I tried to find new sources and could not find any that met the criteria. All failed at some point, either they were non-indepnednt or unreliable or were simple inclusions in "Top-100 Snacks"-style lists that do not establish notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Developments

Another user objected to the PROD. Added four more sources. Two are business wire press releases ([4], [5]) and two based on press releases ([6], [7]). These clearly fail all of the independence, reliability and significance criteria. (22:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

AfD prep

Link to Discussion

Made new SAT including the four new sources that appeared. 10:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Press releases are not independent sources No Press releases are non-reliable Yes ✘ No
No Relies almost exclusively on company filings No Relies almost exclusively on company filings ~ The whole stub is dedicated to the company but it is barely two short paragraphs. ✘ No
No Relies on press releases and quotes No Relies on press releases and quotes Yes ✘ No
No Press releases are not independent sources No Press releases are non-reliable Yes ✘ No
Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away ? Unknown
Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away Link has WP:ROTd away ? Unknown
Yes No apparent connection with company No It is a blog dedicated to promoting dieting methods and recipes. No Only mentions one WP:PRODUCT of the company's ✘ No
While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list No While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list ✘ 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}}.

Draft nomination

I proposed this page for deletion for not establishing its notability under WP:ORGCRIT last week but recently another user objected by removing the tag. Nonetheless, all the sources, as can be seen from the table below, fail to meet the necessary criteria because they are almost all press releases or otherwise non-independent. I've looked for other sources that meet the required standards but found none.

Result

Consensus was Delete. Archived. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Earl of Sandwich (restaurant) Preliminary investigation

I had doubts about the notability of this restaurant. I found some borderline sources so I am not awfully worried at the moment. Likely notable.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jtrrs0/sandbox/AfDprep/Archive_1&oldid=1216909612"