Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

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

Purge page cache

watch

California

Ratio (company)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. The VentureBeat article is written by the CEO of the company itself, the remaining coverage is of routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). Brandon (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Kawamura

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Hernandez (soccer, born 1993)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Nevada. JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[1] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lekressner

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

I was unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Massachusetts, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Grass Valley

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS. Nothing significant or even relevant context found in the Bancroft. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, United States of America, Arizona, California, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with other articles, much of this information is already in the related unit articles. If it should actually be there is another question, as this event isn't especially notable on its own. Intothat darkness 13:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the few battles the Native California Battalion took part in and the most violent episodes between California Volunteers and secessionist like the La Paz incident. It's also one of the few battles were Mexicans took part in. The battle is the only to take place in California during the Civil War, unlike the other battles that include Volunteers fighting the Native Americans. Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not widely covered, which is part of what determines notability. Bancroft is an old source (and was discussed above), and since Prezelski's book is essentially the published version of his doctoral thesis covering the unit in question it's not surprising he'd mention it. The action isn't covered anyplace else. Google Scholar returns exactly zero hits, as does Google Books when you put the created title of the action in quotes. Intothat darkness 12:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least this constructed title isn't bolded in the lead, but there's no indication this event is notable enough to warrant an article when there is no modern historical coverage as a significant event, only contemporary news. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its on page 51 of Californio Lancers: The 1st Battalion of Native Cavalry in the Far West, 1863–1866 By Tom Prezelski Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its on page 313 of Bancroft: vol. 7 Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarParts.com

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

Following my nomination of Auto Parts Warehouse, I’m now nominating its parent company, Carparts.com, as its notability is highly dubious as well. All of the references currently listed are primary sources. The additional sources I’ve found derive their content substantially from primary sources (the company's press releases, financial reports, etc.). It appears that the company lacks independent reporting or analysis of its operations, achievements, or impact.

Another issue with Carparts.com is the presence of multiple links and redirects to its official website across other Wikipedia pages. It seems that the company is misusing Wikipedia for SEO benefits and promotional purpose.

Examples of links & redirects

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LS contains a reference http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/LexusLS600/ redirecting to http://www.carparts.com/blog/2008-lexus-ls600h-l-road-test-review/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_battery a link to https://www.carparts.com/blog/a-short-course-on-charging-systems/

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_7_Series_(E38) a link to http://www.carparts.com/bmw/740i

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_alignment a link to http://www.carparts.com/alignment.htm

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_33_Stradale a link to http://www.familycar.com/Classics/68AlfaT33Stradale/ redirecting to https://www.carparts.com/blog/1968-alfa-romeo-t33-stradale/ Maxvolt (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Maxvolt (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems like a possible attempt at promotion. I say: Delete. ParvatPrakash (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ref bombed article with no single reliable source out of 32 references in the article as of the time I commented in this AFD. All sources come from PR distributors such as BusinessWire, PR Wire and the others published on reliable news websites are same copies published on PR wire and Business wire. It fails WP:NBASIC even if all 32 sources are combined. Mekomo (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One Motley Fool story [2], which I don't think is a RS and a Forbes contributor [3], don't help notability. Rest of the sourcing is as explained in the nom. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Mistry

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

Since this is tagged with the notability tag, adding here for discussion on deletion. (Article creator here, staying neutral on the discussion) GnocchiFan (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rather than staying "neutral", we would much rather have you contribute to the discussion, since you probably have a familiarity with the topic, with emphasis on the question: are there more reliable sources on the person? Or are there not? Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Bragging Rights

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

Keep due to non-English sources mentioned now. I was only looking for English sources in WP:BASIC search as one can't realistically search for things in every plausible language out there. I am seeing no indication of notability. The article is almost entirely based on primary sources from the band's own social media materials without citation as well as citations to their record labels. AMP doesn't offer much of anything other than asking interview questions. Coverage on allmusic is very thin. Additional search finds no sigcov in reliable secondary sources.

The article was created by a single purpose one time account, so it may have been created for promotional reason. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and California. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't sweat it too much, a lot of the sources that others found (English and non-English language) didn't easily turn up for me, either. I think Google custom tailors results too much now, I've seen if I search for something repeatedly, sources will even disappear from results. It's frustrating.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: They charted at number 2 on the Heatseekers and thus meet NBAND special notability guidelines. AllMusic and Kerrang! coverage is probably enough to meet GNG, and that plus the charting highly suggests there is more sourcing out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I suspected, there's more. [4], [5], [6], [7]. Thus satisfies GNG in addition to NBAND.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a clear WP:MUSIC pass, and even if it were created by a promotional account, notability is independent of that fact. Chubbles (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also The Music (magazine) [8] Visions.de [de] [9] Ox-Fanzine [10] Metal.de [11] etc. Geschichte (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band meets WP:MUSICBIO per above sources. ResonantDis_tortion 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

\

Futures Academy - California

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

Insufficient sourcing. The article claims it is part of Fusion Academy now, but I can't verify that. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fusion Academy that mentions it (and has a source, albeit a primary source - an announcement) that verifies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a business that owns schools. It isn't a school. It's a clear NCORP fail. As far as a redirect per above, what I just wrote also applies to the proposed _target article. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akidearest

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

non-notable youtuber who doesn't even remotely meet the inclusion criteria even for just YT personalities, let alone GNG.

Most of the sources are primary, or straight up blackhat SEO/nonsense. TURKIDICAE🦃 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, California, Nevada, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete. The Verge reference is as close to a reliable source on the page as there is. That’s not even close to what we expect of BLPs. Everything else is sourced to social media and an anime fanzine. I won’t oppose a Draftify. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source assessment above is correct. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

EP Entertainment

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

Unnotable entertainment company. There is no significant coverage of it. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL management division of bigger record company, and their one name artist moved on years ago. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable entertainment company. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.

This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."
2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."
3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."
4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."
5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."
6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, seems in depth and from a variety of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.

Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.

Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck? Stepho talk 08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before, A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The writer visited the factory so it is not an independent reference" is one of the biggest "whats?" I've had in a long time on here. I'd seen other people comment on this sort of argument being made on AfDs but didn't expect to actually encounter it being made 'in the wild'. Of course they visited the factory. That was part of the point of the article. The author is independent of Aptera, visiting the factory doesn't magically make them an employee or working for them. Wow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sarcastic comment by an admin is not becoming. I sincerely hope your not making similar comments like that in other places on Wikipedia. If I had a factory and was expecting an editor/writer of a prominent magazine to come and visit, I would lay out the red carpet with the corporate lunch and freebies and loot bags and there would be an expectation there would be a good writeup. There would be a strong personal relationship there between sales/marketing and their channels. It is human nature, quid pro quo, otherwise what would be the point of it. I can imagine him - oh look here is our shiny new product, isn't it fantastic. Oh, yes it is. Its fantastic. I will write an excellent wee ariticle since you fed me some michelin quality food and gave me a fat loot bag. It is all standard marketing practice so the reference is dodgy and not independent. The meaning of independent doesn't have a scale. Independent means independent. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm detecting double standards by scope creep. In an earlier comment scope creep said "I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade" and went on to say that I should not comment on Wikipedia. Now when someone makes a similar comment on him, then it's "unbecoming". The common thread seems to be that anybody saying anything that scope creep doesn't agree with does not deserve to comment.

Regarding the laying on of lunch, goodies, etc - the onus on you is to provide evidence that this happened (or at least that it is common in the industry), that it influenced his article and (if all this did happen) that this somehow is an argument for deleting our article. You have quite a long chain of unproven connections there.

You keep saying that he wrote an article that was heavily biased in favour of the manufacturer. Reading his article, he points out several flaws with the vehicle - hardly the type of article that someone in the manufacturer's pocket would write.

Are you aware that for the vast majority of magazine reviews on new vehicles, the vehicles are supplied free by the manufacturer for a day or 2. If it is a track event (quite common) then lunch is usually supplied in the form of finger food (eg sandwiches and similar basic food). Press packs are often given out but these are simple pamphlets - not the type of thing to risk journalistic integrity over. Yes, the manufacturer puts on a good face when the journalist comes to the factory. No, they don't layout the red carpet, cordon bleu food, piles of cash or similar bribes. If you think that this journalist was biased simply because he visited the factory then you must also say that every car review where they did not buy the car themselves is also biased and throw out the vast majority of references in the vast majority of Wikipedia car articles. Stepho talk 00:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a cosy wee world open to corruption and bias at every level. I'll answer this later today. scope_creep^Talk 07:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus yet. But this is one of the strangest AFD discussions I've reviewed lately. There is an established role for freelance journalists that are not employed by a periodical or media organization. I'm sure a lot of accepted references in articles on this project are written by freelancers. No need to dismiss their contributions if the journal or magazine has editorial oversight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering what Liz mentioned, The subject passes WP:SIGCOV through sources 1 (also published in Reuters), 3 and 9 with supplementary support from 6 and 11 within the article. Additionally, sources from Motor Authority, IEEE Spectrum, Forbes, Greentech Media 1 , Greentech Media 2, Car and Driver review and Wired provides a well-rounded view of the subject to pass notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Liz, there is certainly a question raised as to the reliability of a freelance writer versus a journalist. This has been discussed for numerous publications, hence the creation of things like WP:FORBESCON. Please do not introduce a fallacy from authority. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire point of using references from reliable sources (seeWP:RS, a central pillar of Wikipedia) is an appeal to authority, it seems strange to reject all these references as a "fallacy from authority". Can you tell us which particular references you think are not reliable and why. Stepho talk 22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy from authority I reference is you using Liz's name as if the opinion is law. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "appeal to authority". However, you are still wrong in applying it in this instance. Liz made her comment. Mentor then said "considering" (ie addressing the point without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it), did some research on official Wikipedia policies, researched the references and presented their findings for discussion. Ie research, thought and discussion. Stepho talk 02:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice against a merge to Aptera Motors. The Popular Mechanics and KFMB references, combined with the additional ones listed by Mims Mentor above, would indicate that the article passes GNG. (That said, the car never made it out of the prototype stage and it's unlikely there will ever be much more to say about it, so merging to the manufacturer's article would a reasonable option as well.) --Sable232 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references presented above, several of them, at least four of them are press-release based and not worth anything. They are non-rs. I would go through them but its late in the day. I could search for the specific press-release but since the company has went under it would be difficult but not impossible, there is no doubt there is press-release driven articles. A merge is probably the best bet as there is not enough for standalone notability. It all comes from the company, either visits to the factory to show it off, or the usual startup branding that would fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the references aboves

ref: [12]. This is all from interviews from former staff. It is not independent.

* ref [13] This is a from a press-release and is non-rs. It is not independent.

* ref [14] A visit to the factory.

* ref [15] Seems to be lifted from comments from the chief engineer. Looks like another factory visit.

* ref [16] An interview with the ceo. Its not independent.

* ref [17] Again, another interview style article with the ceo

* ref [18] Another tour of the factory.

I think they are all tours of the factory, making them all primary. Whether there is editorial oversight doesn't matter, its meaningless as all the information comes from the same place. Similar to fintech and software startups. Nothing known about them when the start, so it is all PR and branding. The type of branding here is factory visits. They are not reliable sources and they are not independent breaking WP:RS and failing WP:V. I've not looked at all references but I suspect its all the same. scope_creep^Talk 23:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory that any journalist that has toured the factory, interviewed any company personal or read any company PR is automatically completely controlled by the company is bat-shit insane. These activities are the hallmark of a journalist doing research, not the hallmark of conspiracy theories. The proof is simple, read the articles to see if they are either glowing reports with no faults or if they are balanced reports listing both good and bad points. In that list of references above:

ref: [19]. Generally simpathetic to the company but does point out a few times that some documents were promised but never received - not a comment associated with being in the company pocket. Also written after the company folded, so no kickbacks expected.
ref [20] Just repeating basic facts about the company with little fanfare.
ref [21] Mentions several flaws (creaks and groans, awkward for short drivers, distinct clunking when driving, excessive width, company financial problems).
ref [22] Mentions kinks (awkward for short people, harsh suspension stiff steering).
ref [23] Generally enthusiastic, mentions no faults but it is not overly gushy either. Possibly he did not examine the car himself. Would not call it a paid advert but lacks proper research. Probably a rush job.
ref [24] Same again, lacks independent research.
ref [25] Mentions 8-hour charging time (companies hate this), using the rear hatch is "a Herculean challenge", getting in/out awkward, driver/passenger too close, critical of the capacitive touch buttons on the steering wheel, rear view awkward without the optional camera.

Summary: The first was just a company history (after closure) rather than reporting on the car. Two were lazy reporting and just repeated PR stuff. The bulk of them examined the car itself and gave balanced reports that listed both good and bad points. Stepho talk 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was completly controlled by the company but it is very cosy world. It all seems to be "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" and that is sum of it. Its more or less what it seems to be and so far outside in what would be normal accepted practice. And also your confusing information coming from interviews which can't establish notabilty as its primary with descriptive content, as though that matter when it doesn't. The fact they are mention flaws has nothing to do with it. It is not secondary coverage. Where the information comes and how it arrives is critically important for objectivity and independence of thought. That is what Wikipedia strives for, it really is and there is none of it here. I wouldn't use any of these to write a product article. In Wikipedia the length of time doesn't matter as such and it would better is most cases to wait until there is real coverage instead of all pap that comes from the company. Their offering it on a plate. If you can't tell the difference at this point, there is no point in discussing it further. If you cant see it, what is the point. I think you so immersed in that world of accepting this junk that can't recognise there is world where that practice wouldn't be accepted because its a higher standard and you wouldn't recognise it. scope_creep^Talk 22:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have your theory that anybody who has toured the factory, interviewed company personal or read a press release is an unreliable reference. Your proof for your theory is a subjective feeling of "human nature" but no actual facts. The proof against your theory is the fact that most of those reference said things that the company would rather not have said (flaws, etc).

Primary references come from the company (eg press releases). Secondary references come from a second source (hence the name) that looks at the primary sources (which includes both the company sources, the journalists own perception of the vehicle and any other sources the h=journalist can find), evaluates them with their own judgement and presents the findings, both good and bad. The majority of these references do this.

A few of the references mention no flaws. But neither are they gushing pieces singing the company's praises. To me, they are weak references done by a rushed or lazy journalist. I don't have a problem keeping or losing those couple of references (Green Tech Media). Stepho talk 02:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aptera Motors, with no prejudice against a Keep as per Sable232, Stepho-wrs and others. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisson (singer)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Meets criteria 2 of WP:SINGER for charting on a national music chart. No coverage other than a chart listing though... Unfortunately WP:LINKROT is a very real issue from 2006. It might be rescuable on sourcing grounds if we were to look at music magazine/newspaper coverage offline or behind paywalls. 4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national music chart for the US is the main billboard chart, not Hot Dance Airplay. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Historically at AFD we have interpreted all Billboard chart categories under criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO because they are all "national in scope".4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have sourced the PDF of Billboard that verifies the charting and added it as an inline citation. There is coverage of his radio career on SFGate:[26] and also here. Potentially a keep, needs further work. ResonantDis_tortion 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are brief mentions, single sentences that say when his radio program airs a quote from him in an article about something else. With the right news archive search there are dozens of results like that for any local DJ. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, obviously, and is why I agreed with 4meter4 and stated there is potential, but did not !vote a firm keep (pending any further developments). ResonantDis_tortion 23:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage in RS. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Harrell

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: I believe these two sources from the article, which have WP:SIGCOV, count towards WP:GNG. The others are standings, passing mentions, or interviews. I searched Proquest and Newspapers.com but didn't find anything there. Nnev66 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Capellazzi, Gina (February 26, 2019). "Hanna Harrell ready to make her 'debut to the world' at the 2019 World Junior Figure Skating Championships". figureskatersonline.com.
2. Rutherford, Lynn (March 7, 2019). "Ambitious Harrell Will Reach for the Stars in Zagreb". U.S. Figure Skating. Archived from the original on March 15, 2019.
Weak Keep I think NATHLETE can be established, but some work is needed. What's there now is a start, there are too many shared references, but given the information in the article so far, I am willing to believe that more references specifically about the subject can be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for additional references but couldn’t find any. The subject showed promise in 2018-2019 and there were two articles published in figure skating sites (I’m going to assume they are reliable sources). But then she was injured and from the article she hasn’t performed well after that. So I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find anything else but perhaps someone will in next few days. Nnev66 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for clear WP:GNG-passing coverage. Reminder that the various sports SNGs do still require a GNG pass.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking any sort of news coverage [27] is about the best there is, and it's likely not a RS. Being a patient at the hospital is fine, but it doesn't prove notability. The other sources used in the article are primary or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Music Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this point, without any reliable sources, promo for a non-notable company. Searches turn up nothing solid. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving