User:Jtrrs0/sandbox/AfDprep/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.

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:

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:

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 and The BBC news article . 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)
 * US Dot of State: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm
 * In English but make no mention of Balkhara.
 * Ivanov, Lyubomir (2007). Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages.
 * In English but make no mention of Balkhara.

AfD for Campaign for an Independent Britain
 Link to Discussion  I have doubts as to whether this article is truly notable. I have found a source that might be appropriate but it is unclear. 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)
 * Current source 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.
 * This article might mention something but it is paywall'd.

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. Newspaper sources
 * 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))
 * 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)

PROD
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: 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 and two based on press releases. 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)

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.