Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Fukushima


 * 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 Draftify to Draft:Team Fukushima. There's a consensus to send the article back to draft and I'm applying snowball clause and closing it. There's no need to keep this open any further in my opinion. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī   (talk)  05:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Team Fukushima

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. This is likely to be an excellent organisation, but I am not persuaded that it passes, nor has been shown to pass, our notability and verification criteria. Almost entirely sourced to its own web site. Courtesy ping to the accepting reviewer. I view this as a borderline acceptance, but just on the wrong side of the border. WIth that in mind I believe Draftify would be an acceptable outcome, or ideally WP:HEY - 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral as AfC reviewer however I would like to link this discussion on the talk page. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  23:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to add that the creator stated they would attempt to clean it up and add sources on the talk page, so we might see improvement over the coming days. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  00:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify or Weak Delete per nom. Courtesty ping previous reviewers, and, with whom I had a discussion at Talk:Team Fukushima. I'll raise points similarly to the ones I contended there. Overall, IMO WP:NCORP is failed. The majority of the refs seems to be from this project which states NPO Team Fukushima, so it's associated with the non-profit organisation the article is about and hence non-independent. More refs are from here, also a (questionable) organisation associated with Team Fukushima, indicated by ©︎NPO Team Fukushima at the bottom of the page. Its home page links to here, which shows it self-promoting on the Japanese Wikipedia (the article is incidentally tagged for deletion). Therefore, these refs are non-independent and non-RS. The rest seem to be reports that trivially mention this or minor awards, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. My WP:BEFORE failed to find much, unfortunately, the Japanese version of the page is no better, also relying on trivial mentions, more minor awards from the city (those awards are non-significant, not reported in the wider press, and lack corresponding articles on Wikipedia as well) that WP:CORPDEPTH also regards to as trivial, and non-independent sources as mentioned above. However, given the language barrier I am hesitant towards outright deletion, so draftification might be a good compromise.


 * Still, if drafted IMHO the article creator should not attempt to directly move this back without improvements, instead, notability concerns must be addressed. Further, the promotional format, including external links, puffery, and questionable dot pointed format, along with another organisation related to this company self-promoting on the Japanese Wikipedia, are also problematic and fails WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY. Even if additional sources demonstrating WP:NORG are found, IMO these promotional concerns must also be addressed prior to a move back to mainspace. If draftification, a WP:ATD, does not achieve sufficient consensus, then I'm at weak delete as the current version should not be kept. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  00:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify - article creator says they are willing to work on it. And I agree it is not suitable as is for mainspace, neither did a before show enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  So drafting is a good AtD. Onel 5969  TT me 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: At present the creating editor is making the case for Draftification by the way they are throwing (very hard to check) references at the article, creating a WP:CITEKILL/WP:BOMBARD effect. In the Draft: namespace they will have time to relax about seeking to prove notability. As nominator I might have draftified it instead, but the fact that it's an AFC acceptance militated against that. This is why we are at AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I deleted promotional parts and added many citation.
 * These articles doesn't have digital version, so it makes checking more difficult.
 * However, I used official databases of each newspaper and added enough information needed for verification.
 * And, this organization has been featured many times in mainstream newspaper in Japan. I think this is the point.
 * If it were an unknown organization, it would not be featured many times by mainstream newspaper.
 * Therefore, I believe that it has a notability and meeting verification criteria. Hiroshi0807 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent just pinging you in case you don't see this comment. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  05:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify or Keep if the interested editors fill it with reliable sources. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.