Jump to content

User:Piotrus/CSD proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Batch 1

[edit]
  1. Altinex - unless being listed on a stock exchange is enough to warrant at least a prod? No wiki article is longer but relies primarily on company website, not seeing much on BEFORE
    Being listed on a major stock exchange (in this case the only stock exchange in the country) is a Credible Claim of Signficance in my opinon. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Barkeep49; I think that's a credible claim of significance. I can understand why you think the article is problematic, and I have tagged it as being unsourced. If there is little or nothing more we can say about Altinex than what has been said in that article, it may be better merging that article with the article about Noreco, which acquired Altinex in 2007. The Noreco article is also a stub of roughly the same length, sourced only to primary, company affiliated sources. That said, when one starts talking about merging two articles and looking for additional sources, one is talking about editorial decisions about how best to present information about these companies; not deletion discussions abut if we should present information about them at all.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Cresco (company) - no claim of significance, nothing useful on no wiki, warrant at least a prod? No wiki article is longer but relies primarily on company website,
    To answer your question below, yes bold redirect is preferable to CSD. Strongly preferable in my opinion. As a subsidary of a notable company should either exist or be a redirect to the parent company. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    A proper merge-proposal seems a better option. The Banner talk 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    As with the one above this, and as with Barkeep49 and The Banner, I think readers would be better served by merging and redirecting this to DNB ASA, the parent company. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Cirkus Agora - not seeing anything outside some minor media coverage of its bankruptcy that doesn't seem neither reliable nor in-depth.
    If I came across this on my own through normal editing, I would not think to tag it for deletion. If I came across this as an admin dealing with tagged articles, and it was tagged as A7; I would not think that whoever tagged it was wrong to do so. I'm not sure if I would delete it or decline it though. Assuming I took the time to properly investigate it, I would probably decline to delete it, but it's borderline. The article has been around since 2007. It has been updated in the last 13 years to mention the bankruptcies. The strongest claim of significance has always been that it is one of relatively few traveling circuses in Norway (one of 3 in 2007; one of 5 now). The articles in other languages aren't much longer or better developed than this one, however when I Google it I do see additional sources, most of them not in English. When you reach that point, it's no longer speedy material. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. DB Medialab - some passing mentions in media.
    Being a leading media company (even of the online variety) is a credible claim of significance. If true it would establish notability. See pitfalls 1 & 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, as Barkeep49 said, the bar for A7 is a "credible claim of significance". "The leading", "the only", "the first", "the second", "Award-winning", "Best", "Best-known" are all claims of significance. Sometimes they can also represent puffery, thus aren't always credible, but any time you get to the point where you're turning to sources to determine if it's credible or puffery, you're past A7 territory and on to AFD land. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Eidsvik Skipsbyggeri - some passing mentions in media. No no wiki article
    I would accept this A7. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    I would probably also accept this A7. If it was a new article I would accept it in a heartbeat. The article claims it's a "small" shipyard, "preparing to build its first offshore vessel", which does scream A7. The only hesitation I would have would be because the article has been around so long (created in 2008); the CSD process is meant to be used for things that are actively damaging the encyclopedia and if this has been around that long, what's the harm in waiting an extra week for a PROD? That said, the fact that the article really hasn't been updated in the last 12 years is a good indicator that no one really cares about the article or the company it's about; so we might as well get it over with. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. First Price - just like above
    Has a redirect target so not appropriate for A7. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    A proper merge-proposal seems a better option. The Banner talk 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yep; redirecting to NorgesGruppen#Brands, and maybe adding the sentence describing it and writing similar one-sentence descriptions for each of the other brands would be preferable. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  7. Fjerdingen Busstrafikk = not much outside few google hits that don't suggest in-depth coverage. Possible redirect target (acquisition). Is bold redirect preferable to CSD?
    As you noted there's a redirect target. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    A proper merge-proposal seems a better option. The Banner talk 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, bold redirect is always preferable to deletion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  8. Forenede Nagle- og Skruefabriker - again not much, but could redirect to parent company?
    Yes to redirect Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    A proper merge-proposal seems a better option. The Banner talk 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    A straight redirect here might be confusing. It seems the company was spun off from one company and then merged with another one. However, the name of the new company redirects to that article. The article about the older, parent company is also a stub. Really, probably picking a location and writing one detailed, comprehensive article is the best solution. But that's a fair amount of work. Again, once we're having this kind of discussion, we're no longer in deletion territory. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Batch 2

[edit]

Thank you for your input. Batch 2 (this time from various European countries). I'd prod them before but I wonder if any of those would be fine for CSD:

  1. Genesis Energy Investment - no claim of significance, no good redirect target
    • Looks like a good A7 candidate. There's nothing in there I would call a claim of significance. A quick WP:BEFORE check turns up nothing. --Jayron32 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • If I came across it myself I'd go with PROD as it seems unlikely to be controversial and CSD'ing 13 year old articles for A7 (as opposed to copyvio) just don't sit right with me. This seems to have been your first instinct too which is a good one. If I came across someone else who'd tagged it A7 I am not sure if I would accept, pass and leave for another sysop, or even decline along my 13 y/o CSD reasoning. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Like Barkeep49; the older an article is the less likely I am to accept a CSD for it. For this particular one, I noticed it was originally created as a redirect to a New Zealand company with a similar name. Turns out there are lots of companies with similar names in various countries. Doing some before searches I found a 2009 article about the company being sold to a Texas company. We do not have an article on the Texas company, which, on further research is defunct. Then I came across a 2011 article that indicated the company sold the solar panel portion of the company in 2009 so they could concentrate on mining, and in 2011 was opening a new mine. Our article made it sound like solar panels was all they did; meaning what little information we had was never fully correct. I was able to find a lot of articles about them in the Budapest Business Journal; in 2009-2011 they underwent a lot of identity issues and changed names 3 times. They are now known as Hun Mining. A move is probably in order. As for the article as it was when you found it, a PROD would probably have gone through without objection; but an AFD might have resulted in people finding additional sources and significantly improving the article. Either way, A7 wouldn't have been right for this. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Gorreana - pr wiki has more content but no good refs/claim of sig in the translation. Not seeing claim of significance in our version either. No good redirect target
    • Looks like a good A7 candidate. There's nothing in there I would call a claim of significance. A quick WP:BEFORE check turns up nothing. --Jayron32 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree with with Jayron32 here. I think a company in continous existance since the 19th century is a credible claim of significance. Their website makes the claim to be the oldest and only tea planation in Europe which would also be a CCS (and which I'd have looked at given the age claim on wiki). I would decline A7. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering why the new page patroller approved it in 2018. That said, the website's claim to be the oldest in Europe (which I have incorporated into the article) is a credible claim of significance. It still needs independent sources though. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Tabaqueira - exactly same as above
  4. KS Koolitus - no claim of significance, no good redirect target, et wiki article is about as bad
    • Good for A7. Nothing here. --Jayron32 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I admit to some unease about 6.5 year old articles too (as with Genesis). If I came across this with an A7 tag I'd likely delete but change the reason to G11. G11 is its own thing and I am reluctant to get into that rather than focus on A7 but this is honestly what I'd do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I would accept a A7 for this one. I don't think it is blatant enough for G11 though. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. PrivatBank (Latvia) - no claim of significance, no good redirect target, no lv article - but there is one on de. But I don't see good sources/claims of sig in GTRanslate of it.
    • Basically the same as Genesis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Redirect to PrivatBank#International presence. No need to delete. --Jayron32 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. Sky Media Group - no claim of significance, no good redirect target, et wiki article is about as bad
    • Well the problem here isn't having no redirect target it's having two (Sky Plus and SKY Radio). Those are each poor articles themselves and they also seem not be notable. Honestly I'd complete my BEFORE and take all three as a bundle to AfD. If I saw this as A7 I'm not sure what I would do but suspect I would decline with the suggestion of BEFORE/AFD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Not eligible for A7. Claim to significance is already in article, "the company launched Estonia's most successful commercial radio station Sky Plus." Whether the claim is verified or not, or whether the article should be deleted or not by another process is irrelevant, A7 only requires a claim of significance, running the most successful radio station in a country is a claim of significance. --Jayron32 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    What Jayron 32 said. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  7. Tipperary Crystal - no claim of significance, no good redirect target
    • Same analysis as Genesis.
    Borderline, I could go either way on this. There's not much in the article, however a WP:BEFORE search turns up a few independent sources, [1] for example. Not much. Seems like more of a PROD candidate if there are questions. --Jayron32 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Did you go edit by edit through the history? There are some versions that are sourced to independent sources, make a claim of significance, and are relatively free of puffery and promotion. There are some versions where someone who works for the company has re-written it to be extremely promotional and sourced only to the company's website. There are versions where well meaning editors cut it down to the unsourced 2 sentence stub that currently exists.  Always look at the history before nominating an article for any sort of deletion. I think this is one of the better versions, but I'm hesitant to revert to that as several edits later one of the COI editors indicates there is outdated and inaccurate information there. It needs a lot of clean up; but there are useable sources in the history.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have added sources for a High Court (Ireland)-case and an item in the Hunt Museum. But I am confused about it, as it might be possible that the company went bankrupt (when Waterford Crustal went under) and was later revived. The Banner talk 19:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  8. Teteks - no claim of significance, no good redirect target
    • Is owning a third division football club enough for a redirect target? Probably yes, just as any other subsidary company would be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Not eligible for A7, there's a claim of significance, sponsoring a football team. A WP:BEFORE search turns up a little bit on the company, see [2]. Whether this is enough to avoid deletion is probably debatable, but that's why AFD and PROD exists. The claim in the article is probably enough to avoid A7. --Jayron32 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, I agree with Jayron here. Claim of significance in the football team. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  9. Vífilfell - no claim of significance, no good redirect target. Is/no wiki article are no better.
    • Several Coca-Cola bottlers are notable but I agree there's no good redirect target here. Same as Genesis. One general comment is that you seem to be looking for the easiest/fastest way to delete non-notable stuff. That's fine as far as it goes (I regularly write about the shortage of editor hours we have) but using speedy deletion feels different than other ways. Defaulting to something like PROD which is low involvement but not so controversial, and again is what you said you'd do anyway, feels like the right mindset to be in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Probably a good A7 candidate. Can't find much on a basic WP:BEFORE search, nothing in the article indicates significance. --Jayron32 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't like using speedy for 14 year old articles; but there's just not much here. Not much in the article history, not much I can find online... I'd probably accept a A7 for this. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Batch 3

[edit]

This time biographies with no assertion of significance that I can see. Would you agree? Or would you advise PRODs instead? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  1. Steven A. Klein
  • I would probably accept this as an A7. I don't like using speedy on articles this old, but this one really doesn't have a credible claim of significance. He's the CEO of a company which does not appear to be notable and does not have an article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Concur with ONUnicorn. I don't see any credible claims of significance. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Donat Leclair
  • I would expect the CFO of Ford to be notable. His replacement, Lewis Booth has a decently developed article. A brief Google search brought up several articles about him. I added a couple sources and an update about his current position. The article could use more expansion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Also concur. Unlike the above, which the only claim was to lead a small, non-notable company, being a major executive for one of the largest corporations in the world does count as a claim of significance. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Richard Lindner (business executive)
  • Like Mr. Leclair above, I would expect the CFO of AT&T to be notable. I haven't looked for or added sources. But honestly, being CFO of a major company like Ford or AT&T is enough of a credible claim of significance to rule out A7. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Same as above. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Don W. McGeorge
  • Kroger isn't as big as Ford or AT&T, but it is the largest supermarket chain by revenue in the United States. Being COO of Kroger is a credible claim of significance, making this ineligible for A7. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Same. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Robert J. Darretta Jr.
  • Being CFO of Johnson & Johnson is a credible claim of significance, making this ineligible for A7. I feel like what you are doing is identifying articles that are underdeveloped or need work, and instead of putting in the work or tagging them with an appropriate clean up tag and leaving them for someone else to put in the work, you are trying to delete them. Deletion is supposed to be for articles that are not capable of being improved. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Same again. In general, all of these are major executives at massive corporations. They may not actually pass the notability tests, per WP:GNG, but that just means that AFD is more appropriate for them. The claims to significance are clear given the size of the companies involved. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Bobby Vaughn (designer)
  • Like George W. Edwards below, this one cites two sources, which are themselves credible claims of significance. Moreover, being the founder of a notable company (Von Dutch) is also a credible claim of significance. Again, the article definitely needs work - it wasn't even a complete sentence, just a sentence fragment and two sources. But it's not A7 material. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. William N. Deramus IV
  • See below about George Edwards. This is virtually an identical article, sourced the same, with just the name and dates changed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. George W. Edwards
  • This article is a one-line stub, but it is supported by a reference to a source which appears to be a reliable source and does discuss Mr. Edwards. Wikipedia's definition of a credible claim of significance (and remember, A7 requires that the article not contain a credible claim of significance) says, "If the references within the article discuss the subject . . . then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied." In other words, the reference is a credible claim of significance. I also would not use PROD to delete this article. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with it and would not try to delete it at all, but if you want to try to delete it I think AFD is the way to go as it's highly likely that it would be kept. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I concur. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Walter Kotaba
  • This one's borderline. Neither it nor the article about the company he owes cites any sources. If the company article was in better shape I'd think it would be best to redirect this to the article about the company unless you could find sources that treat him as an individual. As it is, the best tactic might be to bundle them for an AFD. That said, the radio stations owned by the company have articles that are in better shape and do cite sources, so perhaps sources can be found for these? I'd recommend doing some before searches and then consider a bundled AFD for this and the company if you don't find anything. I don't think A7 is the best option here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC) :*Likewise, I think cleanup is the best option here. --Jayron32 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Seth Priebatsch
  • This has 3 credible claims of significance ("keynote speaker at South by Southwest", developed notable apps, cites a source) so A7 is not appropriate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Thomas E. Griffith
  • Cites several sources, although it uses an unconventional citation style. That said, the charity the article claims he co-founded doesn't appear to have an article, and may not be notable. Also, I just tried to check the references, and they appear to be fabricated. Lastly, I visited the charity's website and he is not mentioned as a co-founder. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax under G3. Obviously, as a hoax the article needs to go and the sooner the better. However, A7 is the wrong vehicle for that when G3 more accurately describes the situation.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Adam Gibson (computer scientist)
  1. John Leech (restaurateur)
  • Although there is no article on the restaraunt, I would consider being notable enough that, when you die, the LA Times runs a full obituary to be a credible claim of significance. That said, without more, this may fail not memorial, but the obit that's currently cited mentions earlier coverage of Mr. Leech and his restaurant, so there may be other print sources that could be used to flesh this out some. At any rate, it's not an A7 candidate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Roland S. Boreham Jr. (unless unref claim of a regional hall of fame is sufficient?)
  • I would say, "best known for building Baldor Electric . . . into an international corporation." is sufficient to be a "credible claim of significance". The claim of being in the hall of fame is icing on the cake. I'm bothered by the lack of sourcing, but since he's not living it's also not a candidate for BLPPROD. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. George H. Talbot
  1. Frank Heineman
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/CSD_proposals&oldid=942447317"