User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 11:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Hut 33	24 days ago	1	2800	2130.75
Tulika Mehrotra	20 days ago	3	7846	1671.44
Mwijaku	15 days ago	1	3897	1459.89
List of Ale Conners of London	15 days ago	1	4848	1438.1
Salavatabad (mountain)	13 days ago	0	4950	1402.64
Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo	13 days ago	1	3468	1294.81
Biba Apparels	12 days ago	0	3135	1271.06
ClickUp (2nd nomination)	15 days ago	3	31525	1244.48
Data Security Council of India	12 days ago	1	4098	1224.11
Examples of feudalism	12 days ago	1	7366	1222.61
Reelmonk (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	1	3690	1221.56
Vabbing	13 days ago	2	3797	1200.4
Advanced Technology Development Center	11 days ago	1	4019	1169.45
Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time (2nd nomination)	11 days ago	1	9112	1146.45
Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach	12 days ago	2	6477	1122.88
Tunbow	11 days ago	1	12347	1122.86
Examples of civil disobedience	12 days ago	2	5992	1122.27
Independent Municipal Party of Ljusnarsberg	10 days ago	1	5060	1106.53
Licious (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	3	4167	1071.5
Mallzee (2nd nomination)	10 days ago	1	5691	1058.39
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation	12 days ago	3	5001	1055.45
Corentin Rahier	9 days ago	1	3780	1051.71
August Capital (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	3	17498	1051.7
12 Blues	9 days ago	0	11576	1032.32
West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra (2nd nomination)	9 days ago	1	5736	1029.94

Hut 33

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to James_Cary_(writer)#Career -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The improvements and added sources persuade me of notability. Also, I always think about this comment from WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Being an author of a book does not make her notable to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU^writes 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Internet, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Ale Conners of London

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

Fails WP:LISTN as not having received attention as a group. An individual appointment sometimes gets a mention in a different source (though most of these aren't independent), but that's about it. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look for additional mentions and references on this subject. I look forward to receiving the results of the deletion discussion, and will of course be happy with whatever decision the group comes to. Tippylegend (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there's no encyclopedic information here that isn't on the article for Ale conner. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The US CIA has mapped most of the world in very detailed older maps you can find online. I found this one [1] from the "Iran, Series 1501, Joint Operations Graphic (Air) 1:250,000" set, map NI 38-4 Sanandaj, Iran. Salavatabad village is nicely detailed. You can see individual "Kuh"s (mountains) marked on the map, though a peak of 8747 elevation just east of the village is not labeled. I don't see a peak marked Salavatabad but i only have looked quickly at this map. And the current text of the article doesn't really match what the photo shows, which is a mountain close to Salavatabad. The text says the range lies west of Sanandaj, but that city is already west of Salavatabad. But maybe this map helps someone figure out the mystery.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:NTVNATL and merge as proposed by the nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Biba Apparels

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

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

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09. Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.			The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article.
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19.			I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023.			Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette.	Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese	– Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also.
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews.			Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat.	Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	This is better than the other ones (e.g. [2]). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND.		–
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources: Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7. Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1.		However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Modernwoman2021 is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources): responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform. is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:

The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself: a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).).

For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.

The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.

The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND

Announcements of hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE.

For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.

In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Wikipedia. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet GNG/ORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: There are hundreds of articles I see online about ClickUp.

From San Diego Tribune, San Diego Business Journal, Silicon Angle, Times of San Diego, Fast Company, Fast Company, Ad Week, Crunchbase News, Irish Times, PR Newswire, Forbes (Third Party), Solutions Review, UC Today, and Digital News Asia to name a few.

These have quite substantial information about ClickUp and are news articles, not press releases.

But I do get that we're looking for quality, not quantity here. I will raise the UC Today article as I believe it covers the requirements needed for NCORP.

Although the sources are quite positive, which could lead to bias, I dug deeper and found this TechCrunch article, which is about the company layoffs.

And I'd like to add that ClickUp is a pretty well known company here in the US. It's comparable to Asana and I'd be really surprised if there was no Wikipedia.

As I understand Wikipedia, it's used for education, and since so many people search for ClickUp, it's only right that Wikipedia is the central point for all information about ClickUp.

Those are just my two opinions, because credibility is the issue here.

Since this is the English language Wikipedia, the US is one of the target countries in terms of location and popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiresearcher (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nabiresearcher is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this assumption has anything to do with the discussion, since I only provided sources I know to help?

Please keep the discussion only about ClickUp. Anything here shouldn't be taken personally :) Thank you! Nabiresearcher (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from casting aspersions on other editors, regardless of edit count or participation elsewhere. Thank you. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Plenty of references out there, meets NCORP easily. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Data Security Council of India

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

This non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Another alternative is to merge with NASSCOM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep (Maybe Weak Keep, if others have strong reasons to not-keep) - Although the wiki page is not quite developed, seems notable and secondary sources are using information produced by them. e.g. see this and others at google search. Asteramellus (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep The Data Security Council of India (DSCI) meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, Organization Notability Guideline, and Government Entity Notability Guideline.

Notability: DSCI is a government-recognized body and widely covered by reliable sources such as [India Today](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/2024-a-year-of-data-leaks-espionage-and-ddos-attacks-ransomware-data-breach-2654230-2024-12-23) and Google News (https://news.google.com).
As an initiative by NASSCOM and endorsed by the Indian government, DSCI plays a significant role in data privacy and cybersecurity in India. While the article would benefit from better structure and citations, these are editing issues, not valid grounds for deletion. The article should be retained and improved, not deleted.

Cameremote (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Examples of feudalism

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

This seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?
I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.
I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.
For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is No consensus here at all, just a multitude of suggestions. User:Folly Mox do you have one outcome that seems primary to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh right I'm supposed to follow up on this! I think the optimal outcome is a good list, maybe titled "Feudal and semifeudal political systems in world history" or something more concise, with or without a leading "List of".

As foretold, I have not had the time to work on this. Maybe in the interim we can draftify the article as written, and temporarily redirect the title to Feudalism till it gets cleaned up?? Or toss a {{listify}} template at the top, move to a new title, and leave in mainspace for improvement?? I'm sorry I'm not more decisive here: as mentioned, I only really edited this article in one period several months ago. I was expecting more participation. Folly Mox (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Possible outcomes suggested are Deletion, Merge, Redirect or Draftify. We need more participants to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - lots of sources exist to write an article about examples of feudalism. The current page appears to be poorly written and contain a significant amount of personal opinion but it seems undeniable that the topic would be notable. I don't really see why there is a problem with forking the main page and allowing this one to develop. JMWt (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reelmonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - defunct streaming platform; not a unicorn; usual caveats for Indian media. This is really only of use for historical purposes. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([3] [4] [5] [6]) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 [7], showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well [8].... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Advanced Technology Development Center

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: I found two independent sources ([9], [10]) and added them to the article, but I'm not sure about reliability and the first one seems pretty promotional. I'd be more confident if someone could find another piece of coverage that isn't connected to the ATDC or Georgia Tech. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to try another relisting before considering closing this discussion as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:

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

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, including one page in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age and one paragraph in The Last Pirate's History of Doctor Who... -Mushy Yank. 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
There is also a 13-page paper dedicated to the series https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505; see also https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505. Please kindly consider withdrawing this nomination as your concern seems addressed. @OlifanofmrTennant. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Worth noting that the book Playing Fans reuses large portions of the paper, as confirmed by the book's acknowledgements (and a quick skimming of both sources – the paper can be viewed through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library), so they're basically a single source. And the mention in The Last Pirate's History is a brief mention in a long list, so I wouldn't call that mention significant. Other sources in the article may contribute to notability as well, but these by themselves aren't enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I would say they are. But if you want, feel free to add Broadcast in the U.S.: Foreign TV Series Brought to America, p. 232-233. And https://collider.com/community-inspector-spacetime/ And http://braindamaged.fr/20/11/2012/web-serie-zone-inspector-spacetime/ And https://geeksofdoom.com/2014/03/12/inspector-spacetimes-untitled-web-series-needs-help-make-inspector-chronicles-movie And so on. No further comments. Still inviting the nominator to withdraw. -Mushy Yank. 12:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Why is Geeks of Doom reliable? And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion. The Collider source talks about it at the very end with nothing beyond "this cool thing happened and there was no season 2" Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you open the books? Read the papers? Check other existing sources? -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion."=No, most of the sources I mention talk about the web series which you took for deletion, and some are "particurly in depth." So your concern that "Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV" seems totally addressed (if a page can "fail" an essay, btw). https://www.vulture.com/2012/09/not-inspector-spacetime.html (limited) https://comicbook.com/comicbook/news/communitys-inspector-spacetime-launches-his-own-untitled-webseries/ (for the history of the production) and so on. https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-inspector-chronicles-is-the-doctor-who-spoof-movie-sorta-spun-off-from-community-e844667fd8e7/ It meets the general requirements for notability even if it's only with the dedicated article and 2 of the books. Feel free to add the sources you like best to the page. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Erratum: in my first reply to myself I linked twice the same paper; the second paper I intended to link was: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814558907 -Mushy Yank. 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(noting for anyone who can't view the article through TWL) This is another article by the same author, Paul Booth. Per WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. It's also a pretty brief mention, with only one paragraph about it in a much larger paper about a broader topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions from editors well-versed in this field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach

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

This appears well-referenced, but no reference mentions the term "lineage-instructive" in their heading. It is not obvious this meets WP:NLIST. Further, there is no criteria given for why those particular examples are included (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps per WP:ATD-R this could be merged and redirected to transdifferentiation, which is not too long. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge Back in May 2012, User:Ilee0913 created two articles, this one (Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach) and its sister Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by initial epigenetic activation phase approach. The pairing makes it clear that the odd phrasing is simply a marker for the different selections in the two articles. As nom says, the sourcing is robust. It may be that the two could simply be merged, with 'By lineage-instructive approach' becoming one chapter, and 'By initial epigenetic activation phase approach' becoming another chapter. In that case the merged article should be titled Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap I think "Examples of..." is a pretty bad type of Wikipedia article (almost as bad as "Instruction to..."). Merge is a good idea, but why hot merge both to transdifferentiation? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe, if it doesn't unbalance the article under a load of examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap Well, is a list of examples even encyclopedic? Smacks of WP:OR. What criteria has been used to select these examples? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Well the criteria will disappear under a merge, so the question is academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support to a Merge and also to determine what the Merge target article is actually being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, don't merge: I'm sorry to derail the growing Merge consensus, but the content of this article simply isn't encyclopedic. Transdifferentiation gives a summary of the methods used to induce transdifferentiation, with a few well-chosen examples (though we should delete the "Here is a list of examples" statements from that article). This list is a bunch of context-free citations to primary literature; anyone who understands what each entry means would probably consult a review article, rather than Wikipedia, if they need examples. Redirect seems pointless because this is such an unlikely search term. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Tunbow

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

Appears to be wholly promotional Amigao (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Hong Kong. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Only routine business listings found. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The company's Chinese name is Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) and the founder is Charles Chan (traditional Chinese: 陳鑑光; simplified Chinese: 陈鉴光). Cunard (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chong, Cheng-man 莊程敏; Yan, Kiu-ling 殷考玲 (2021-09-09). "老品牌拓疆土升級須創新" [Old Brands Expand Territories, Upgrading Requires Innovation]. Lion Rock Daily [zh] (in Chinese). p. P6. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "有「熨斗大王」之稱的東保集團創辦人兼主席陳鑑光博士，憑藉2001年推出自家研發塑料製成的電子控溫熨斗，短短一年售出逾70萬件，從此奠定集團在歐洲市場的地位，但他並未因此滿足。去年在港設立研究開發部門，為進軍大灣區9市市場作準備，目標以開拓9+2城市的家庭為主。東保集團成立逾25年，產品走中高端路線，研究開發（R&D）部門一直在內地，但由去年起在香港同樣設立R&D部門並設逾20位開發人員"
  From Google Translate: "Dr. Chen Jianguang, the founder and chairman of Tunbow Group, known as the "Iron King", launched his own electronic temperature-controlled irons made of plastic in 2001. More than 700,000 units were sold in just one year, establishing the group's position in the European market. status, but he was not satisfied with it. Last year, a research and development department was established in Hong Kong to prepare for entering the 9 cities in the Greater Bay Area. The goal is to develop families in the 9+2 cities. Tunbow Group has been established for more than 25 years, and its products are mid-to-high-end. The research and development (R&D) department has always been in the mainland. But since last year, it has also set up an R&D department in Hong Kong with more than 20 developers."
2. "鼓勵溝通合作助企業擺脫單打獨鬥香港模具及產品科技協會見證「百業之母」改朝換代" [Encouraging Communication and Cooperation to Help Businesses Break Free from Solo Struggles: Hong Kong Mould and Product Technology Association Witnesses the Transformation of the 'Mother of All Industries']. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2016-01-28. p. P40.
  The article notes: "憑首創開放蒸發器熨斗，成功晉身世界五大熨斗代工生產商，贏得“熨斗大王”稱譽的東保集團創辦人兼主席陳鑑光博士（Dr. Charles Chan，見圖），全靠他面對挑戰時視危為機的信念。陳鑑光博士與他的太太在90年代初期決定闖一闖，合組貿易公司，成立東保。在創業初期，東保只是以設計及貿易性質運作。"
  From Google Translate: "With the first open evaporator iron, Dr. Charles Chan (pictured), founder and chairman of Tunbow Group, successfully joined the world's top five iron OEM manufacturers and won the title of "Iron King", all because of his ability to face challenges The belief that every crisis is an opportunity. Dr. Chen Kam-kwong and his wife decided to venture into the business in the early 1990s, forming a trading company and establishing Tunbow. In the early days of business, Tunbow only operated in the nature of design and trading."
3. Sit, Wai-kit 薛偉傑 (2010-08-06). "小家電商 8招抗逆境" [8 Strategies for Small Home Appliance Businesses to Overcome Adversity]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. B11.
  The article notes: "東保集團成立於1995 年，主力生產小型家電，特別是電熨斗。其客戶包括多個知名品牌如伊萊克斯、飛利浦、白朗、Kenwood、勝家等。"
  From Google Translate: "Tunbow Group was established in 1995 and focuses on the production of small household appliances, especially electric irons. Its customers include many well-known brands such as Electrolux, Philips, Blanc, Kenwood, Singer, etc."
  The article notes: "另外，東保集團與一般廠商不同的，是它很強調一條龍式垂直生產。該公司自設電路板生產部、五金部、壓鑄部、塑膠部、噴油部等。總之，就是自行生產其小家電所需的電路板、金屬機殼、塑膠機殼，以及自行為機殼噴油。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, Tunbow Group is different from ordinary manufacturers in that it emphasises one-stop vertical production. The company has its own circuit board production department, hardware department, die-casting department, plastic department, fuel injection department, etc. In short, it means producing the circuit boards, metal casings, and plastic casings needed for its small household appliances by itself, and spraying oil on the casings by itself."
4. Leung Man-fung 梁文峰 (2010-07-12). "東保拓內銷或5年內上市" [Tunbow Expands Domestic Sales, May Go Public within 5 Years]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). p. B1.
  The article notes: "家電設計、生產商東保集團為開拓內銷市場，正於惠州投資5億元擴展生產基地，預計總產能將提升5 倍。現時深圳兩廠房共有約20條生產線，年產800萬台小家電。"
  From Google Translate: "Tunbow Group, a home appliance designer and manufacturer, is investing 500 million yuan to expand its production base in Huizhou in order to develop the domestic market. It is expected that the total production capacity will increase five times. Currently, the two factories in Shenzhen have a total of about 20 production lines, with an annual output of 8 million units of small household appliances."
5. "圖：深圳港資企業「綠色風」盛" [Tunbow Expands Domestic Sales, May Go Public Within 5 Years] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2010-07-07.
  The article notes: "7月7日，一群香港媒體記者專程來到深圳寶安，釆訪推行「綠色生產」、「綠色小家電」揚名業界的香港東保集團深圳生產基地。該集團為減少生產污染投資3,000多萬港圓對硬體和軟體進行改善工程，企業環保創新產品不斷出現。目前集團20條生產線，年產800萬台各式家用電器，暢銷美國、加拿大及歐盟、東南亞26個國家。"
  From Google Translate: "On 7 July a group of Hong Kong media reporters made a special trip to Bao'an, Shenzhen to visit the Shenzhen production base of Hong Kong Tunbow Group, which is famous in the industry for promoting "green production" and "green small home appliances". The group has invested more than HKD 30 million in hardware and software improvement projects to reduce production pollution, and innovative environmentally friendly products have continued to emerge. At present, the group has 20 production lines, with an annual output of 8 million units of various household appliances, which are sold well in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and 26 countries in Southeast Asia."
6. "東保集團董事總經理鄧美華東保集團積極開拓高技術高加值特色化的家電產品" [Tunbow Group Managing Director, Ms. Tan Meihua: Tunbow Group Actively Expanding High-Tech, High-Value, and Specialised Home Appliance Products]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). 2018-12-19. p. AA10.
  The article notes: "身為本港知名企業，東保集團積極開拓高技術、高增值、特色化的家電產品，推出電子熨斗、強力蒸氣專業熨斗、電子蒸籠、濃湯機及全自動咖啡機。公司成立於1994年，與香港一同經歷風雨，亦一同成長。作為營商者為公司賺取利潤固然重要，但東保集團更有一份香港精神，與客戶共渡時艱，這更為可貴。"
  From Google Translate: "As a well-known enterprise in Hong Kong, Tunbow Group actively develops high-tech, high value-added and specialised home appliance products, launching electronic irons, powerful steam professional irons, electronic steamers, soup makers and fully automatic coffee machines. The company was established in 1994 and has experienced ups and downs together with Hong Kong and has grown together. As a businessman, it is important to make profits for the company, but Tunbow Group has more of a Hong Kong spirit and shares difficulties with its customers, which is even more valuable."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) 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) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional review of new sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Examples of civil disobedience

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

This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of random examples of a very large concept, organized by country with some extra random sections on religion and climate change... it's a mess that is effectively a random list of poorly organized examples from the large category. It makes about as much sense as having examples of science fiction books or examples of famous people articles. If scholars discuss particularly famous cases of civil disobedience, those can and should be first covered in the main article, and split only here if we have too many such examples (which is not the case, this is just linked bizarrely from the "Choices" section of the main article, which is not about examples but about aspects of theory). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete We have lists already listing protests and riots. This list things that don't have their own articles, so aren't notable, just random examples by the whim of a single editor. There is Category:Civil disobedience, showing far more things on it than this list does, and has subcategories listing things into categories for three nations that have the most entries. Dream Focus 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - We have an article about civil disobedience. A list of examples helps to explain that concept. The main article is already long, so a separate article makes sense. It could be renamed "list of" or somesuch, and inclusion criteria should be better documented, but I don't have a hard time seeing this as passing WP:LISTN. The topic being very large is a good reason to keep this split rather than list examples in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Rename to List of civil disobedience movements and keep. The main Civil disobedience is too big. Azuredivay (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Azuredivay We should first have an article on civil disobedience movement. Right now it is just a (bad) redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
But is that a distinct enough topic from civil disobedience? In that case, I have corrected the target of that redirect to Civil disobedience. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We already have Civil disobedience. Azuredivay (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Independent Municipal Party of Ljusnarsberg

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

Sure, this ultra-local party will have some coverage in its local municipality of 4,407. But it's just no way that it is notable on a larger scale, so fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The nominator seems to be hinting at WP:AUD with the statement about coverage in its local municipality, which specifies that to pass WP:NORG a subject will need coverage beyond a local area. However, the article already has WP:SIGCOV present in its single source thus far in a national Swedish newspaper. The nominator has not described the results of a BEFORE search to indicate whether any other qualifying coverage exists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Nerikes Allehanda is not a national newspaper, it is a regional newspaper for Närke. The piece in question is not mainly about Ljusnarsbergs Obundna Kommunparti either. Geschichte (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The example at WP:AUD is 'the weekly newspaper for a small town', Närke has a population of 223 000 people and Nerikes Allehanda is a daily newspaper with 20 000 paying digital subscribers and a print circulation of 43 000 in 2015. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It also says "At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.", covering Närke makes it regional. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, I've added some additional sources from the regional radio station SR P4 Örebro. I also believe I saw some other print sources in Mediearkivet, but I've lost access since I last looked at this article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Both Nerikes Allehanda and P4 Örebro have a wide enough coverage area that I don't believe either is affected by WP:AUD, as said above. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at https://tidningar.kb.se there seem to be some mentions that at least go beyond reporting results in national newspapers, but I don't have access to this either without going to an archival institution. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Licious

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - with the caveat that most Indian media nowadays is spoiled (pun intended), the coverage shows this is a unicorn company. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete - changed from a Keep upon second look. Created by a new editor who has splashed up articles of dubious notability. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom and this page is for promotional and advertisement it seems. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete: An article setting out the proposition of a former retail e-business, which in its time attracted a stushie of predictions of a great future - which didn't happen, showing once more the perils of a crystal ball. It may be arguable that these several predictive items provide the multiple sources to demonstrate notability - and then that notability persists. Against that, though, pitching on Dragon's Den, raising funds, doing deals to present your app on a vendor's platform, etc., are not unusual start-up actions and don't confer notability in themselves. To demonstrate notability we need evaluation rather than predictions, to be able to concisely answer "Why was this firm notable?" and here I think it is a struggle. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Here are some of the best sources I could find. Some coverage is from the time when the company was called "Lafarge India". I'm wary of paid news but the Indian sources don't seem to me to be paid or PR. [11] [12] [13] [14] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Helpful Raccoon a SIRS table will surely make notability much clearer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge with Nirma: I don't think the sources I listed above provide enough significant coverage for a standalone article. Only the article about its acquisition of Emami Cement plausibly constitutes sigcov. Note that the company was renamed from Lafarge India despite what the article Nirma currently says. (see [15]) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Nirma Group: The company lacks independent significance. It should be redirected to Nirma Group. B-Factor (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Nirma. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Corentin Rahier

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The one secondary source already in the article (source 2) combined with [[16]] and [[17]] appear to contain enough coverage of Rahier to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the 2017 Junior Worlds Field Guide: Ice Dance article is from a blog site run by a single person. As such it is most likely not deemed a reliable source per WP:SPORTBASIC. The other two sources look okay at a glance. Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Good catch there. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep: The subject seems familiar, I suggest the article be worked on instead given the references provided by Liz

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Tons of coverage that goes back to before the millennium. There's more than a dozen articles in the Wall Steet Journal which detail deals made: [18], [19], [20]. There's New York Times coverage as well: [21], [22], [23], [24]. Plenty more sources out there. This is just from a few minutes search. Thriley (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
See WP:CORPDEPTH. These are funding announcements (1+2+4+5), brief hiring news (3) and a brief mention (6+7). These would be considered routine trivial coverage. Could be just regurgitation of press releases. No considered in depth enough to fulfill WP:ORGCRIT. The requirements for WP:NCORP are a lot more stringent now and simply having a bit of coverage is not enough to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you really spend more than a few minutes looking into potential sourcing? Thriley (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That's the type of coverage that is expected for a firm like this one. It demonstrates that billions of dollars has passed through it over the last 30 years. Thriley (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: You added a source from Fortune to the article . Are you seeing the widespread coverage I am seeing? Thriley (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

While a firm with a large AUM is expected to be notable, it is the independent in-depth sources that determine notability per WP:NCORP. Just saying an investment firm has raised XXX amount alone is considered routine since they all need to do that since how else are they going to get money to invest? Speaking of AUM, August Capital has supposedly $1.3B to $2B AUM. Meanwhile BOND has $6B AUM and Accel-KKR has over $20B AUM and they both got deleted. Imcdc Contact 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment, especially of newly found sources, would be helpful as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The sources listed provide only routine coverage, including the one from the Wall Street Journal. Aona1212 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fund, Bret R.; Pollock, Timothy G.; Baker, Ted; Wowak, Adam J. (2008). "Who's the New Kid? The Process of Developing Centrality in Venture Capitalist Deal Networks". In Baum, Joel A. C.; Rowley, Timothy J. (eds.). Network Strategy. Advances in Strategic Management. Vol. 25. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 563–593. doi:10.1016/S0742-3322(08)25016-3. ISBN 978-0-7623-1442-3. ISSN 0742-3322. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The book notes on page 566: "We then introduce our process model of centrality achievement and summarize the history and evolution of two venture capital firms – Benchmark Capital and August Capital – to illustrate the elements and relationships in our model."
  The book notes on page 574: "August Capital (August) was founded by partners David Marquardt and John Johnston, two former partners of TVI whose early stage investment experience prior to founding August included investments in Microsoft, Adaptec, Compaq, Sun Microsystems, Seagate, Intuit, Sybase, Visio, Actel, and ViewLogic. David Marquardt is a prominent and high-status member of the VC community; he was a co-founder of TVI and the lead VC for the Microsoft deal. To this day he continues to serve on Microsoft’s board."
  The book notes on pages 574–575: "In the simplest terms, August seemed to take its time, moving at a very deliberate pace. In the several months following the close of its inaugural fund, August made only one small investment for about $1 million (representing approximately 1% of its total fund). Our reading of a variety of contemporary descriptions of August’s behavior and our examination of their investment behavior suggests the self-confident manner of a ‘‘master of the universe’’ that felt little urgency or compulsion to hurry in making investments and putting the new firm on the map."
  The book notes on page 572: "As the two firms entered their second year, August continued its more conservative approach and made no additional investments in the first three months of 1996. It appeared, rather, that the August partners continued to work with ventures they knew from their TVI days but in which August had not yet made investments. Finally, in April of 1996, August invested along with six other VC firms in Be, Inc., a company that TVI originally funded in 1992."
  The book notes on page 584: "August’s first two funds (with a combined total of $300 million) were fully invested in 34 companies by 1999. Overall, August invested in 44 companies from 1995 to 2000 with an average investment of $6.8 million. Among these companies were big names such as Epinions.com, Cobalt Networks, and Be, Inc. As Fig. 5 shows, during our period of study seven of August’s investments underwent initial public offerings (IPOs). The median return for the seven firms that August took public was 585%. Their two most successful IPOs during this period were Cobalt Networks and Silicon Image. August’s investment of $10 million in Cobalt Networks was worth $336 million at the end of the day Cobalt went public – a 3,360% return. Silicon Image was similarly successful; August’s $8.3 million investment in this firm was worth $119 million after the first day of trading, generating a 1,444% return."
2. Primack, Dan (2019-01-02). "A look inside the trouble at Silicon Valley's August Capital". Axios. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes: "Silicon Valley venture firm August Capital held its annual holiday dinner on Dec. 6. The mood was festive, not only because of the season, but also because August had recently held a first close on its eighth fund after an unusually arduous process. Four days later, the firm effectively imploded. ... Background: August Capital was founded in 1995 by investors who had written some of the earliest checks for tech icons like Microsoft and Compaq. ... August was so successful for so long that it never really had to fundraise in the traditional sense. Instead, it could just send out an email to investors and hold a quick close. But that changed in 2018 with its efforts to secure $250 million for Fund VIII. Some LPs were still upset with how fees were handled on August's under-performing sixth fund, while others were curious about partnership stability given that two longtime GPs (Howard Hartenbaum and Vivek Mehra) were out and 2 newer GPs (Tripp Jones and Villi Iltchev) were in."
3. Roberts, Bill (May 2000). "The chip-friendly VCs". Electronic Business. Vol. 26, no. 5. Reed Business Information. pp. 72–82. ProQuest 194235753.
  The article notes: "August Capital may be the best kept secret in Silicon Valley. It was cofounded in August (hence the name) 1995 by Marquardt, a Silicon Valley legend and the only VC who invested in Microsoft Corp. 19 years ago. It now has three funds totaling nearly $700 million, with more than $1.5 billion in assets under management. ... Rappaport joined the firm in 1996. The other general partners are John Johnston, the other cofounder and a former partner at Technology Venture Investors (TVI), also in Menlo Park, and Andrew Anker, who was co-founder and CEO of Wired Digital Inc., San Francisco, a news and media organization that launched the first advertising Web site. Mark Wilson, administrative partner, and Won Chung, research partner, round out the senior team.August Capital thrives on early stage funding, preferably as lead investor, in companies like Genoa that seek to fundamentally change their industry. ... August Capital's only disaster was DigiCash, which was developing infrastructure for electronic payments over the Internet. ... It entered Chapter 11 in late 1998 and emerged in 1999 as eCash Technologies Inc., Seattle."
4. Primack, Dan (2014-09-26). "Exclusive: August Capital leaving "opportunity" on the table". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes about "“opportunities funds": "But Fortune has learned that one of the practice’s originators, August Capital, is going in the other direction. Back in 2000, August took advantage of an opportunity to participate in a $2 billion buyout for hard-drive maker Seagate. The only problem was that its commitment took up around one-third of its fund, which is an exceptionally high percentage. So August later decided to begin raising $250 million side vehicles to handle such deals, and has done so for each of its last three fundraises (no fees are charged on the side-funds until capital is called). But when August returns to market later this year to raise its sixth fund, there will be no sidecar."
5. Garland, Russ (March 2015). "VC Profile: August Capital Shifts to Single-Fund Model to Maintain Its Focus on Value Investing". Private Equity Analyst. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05 – via ProQuest.
  The article notes: "Although some venture firms have turned to side funds to make large, growth-oriented investments, August Capital has gone in the opposite direction.The early-stage venture firm, which participated in the 2000 buyout of Seagate Technology LLC, had raised a special opportunity fund as a companion to each of its prior three funds. With its latest, $450 million pool, however, it returned to a single-fund approach. ... The Seagate investment was the catalyst for August's first special opportunity fund. That deal wasn't a natural for what is primarily an early-stage venture firm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow August Capital 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) 09:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep; meets WP:NCORP via the sources identified by Cunard. Another source is this 3000+ word profile:

Rao, Leena (2014-06-14). "Sand Hill Road's Consiglieres: August Capital". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-01-05.

Jfire (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

12 Blues

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

Not notable. Only notable thing on the article to me was "world's first hotel residences offered for sale by the government of the Maldives." which is far-fetched to me. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Scope says:
For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Natural features says:
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says:
Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

Sources
1. Hawker, Cathy (2010-10-27). "Paradise Opens Up: The Maldives is allowing foreigners to buy property on the 1,192 islands for the first time". Evening Standard. ProQuest 760082296.
  The article notes: "The first, 12 Blues, is on 10-acre Lundufushi island, 45 minutes by seaplane from the international airport in the capital Male, a crowded little town and home to a third of the island's 315,00 population -- historically fishermen -- with the rest spread over 1,192 small islands. The 12 Blues company plans an atmosphere of serenity and organic luxury when it builds 40 off-plan villas and an exclusive resort, due for completion by 2012. Buyers at 12 Blues must put their property into the rental pool for all but six weeks of the year. There will be 37 villas on stilts sitting in the clear, warm Indian Ocean. These homes will be large -- 2,316sq ft for Pounds 1.15 million -- and there will also be seven land villas for Pounds 1.4 million. Rental revenue will be divided in half with the owners. ... The Arabian-style villas are designed to resemble floating lanterns, with private pools overlooking a palm-fringed beach. Onsite facilities will include a serious spa, restaurants and a dive centre."
2. Latham, Laura (2011-10-28). "Selling Off Pieces of Island Paradise". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "The first company to introduce a residence option was 12 Blues in October 2010 on the island of Lundhufushi, 130 kilometers, or 80 miles, from the capital of Malé. Of the 40 villas planned, 10 already have been sold, and 10 more will be put on the market next year. The resort was designed by the Singapore company Eco.id, and is intended to include a Franklyn hotel, spa and a variety of restaurants and bars. Properties are priced from $2.3 million, or €1.7 million, and owners who want to put their homes into the resort’s rental pool will receive six weeks’ use per year and 50 percent of the net revenue."
3. "Grab a slice of idyllic island resort life". The Straits Times. 2010-10-12. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "A press statement from JLL yesterday said the 12 Blues Resort & Spa is the first hotel residences development in the Maldives to be made available for individual foreign ownership. The strata-titled development comprises 33 water villas and seven beach villas with prices starting from US$1.855 million each. Located in Raa Atoll in the Indian Ocean, 12 Blues is a 35-minute seaplane journey north of Male, the capital of the Maldives. Known by locals as Lundhufushi, the island is a 10 acre teardrop-shaped coral island with over two kilometres of untouched pristine beachfront."
4. "Join Branson and the Beckhams in the Maldives". Evening Standard. 2016-02-24. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "In almost all the islands, property is only available on short-term lease — currently a maximum of 50 years — and all building materials apart from sand and a little wood must be brought in from abroad. The only off-plan project there to date, 12 Blues, launched amid much fanfare in 2010 but even the country's president arriving to lay the first stone on the totally undeveloped Lundufushi island, failed to prevent the project sinking financially without trace."
5. Davies, Helen (2015-02-22). "The longest honeymoon ever: investing in the Maldives. Just the mention of the Indian Ocean archipelago is enough to inspire lust. Now exclusive resorts are allowing overseas buyers to snap up their very own piece of island paradise". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "There have been a few promised developments that failed to materialise — 12 Blues, for example, which was meant to be the first hotel-residence project open to individual foreign buyers — but this year there will be more bamboo scaffolding and boats piled with builders instead of fishermen landing on the sandy shores than ever before."
6. Hall, Zoe Dare (2011-11-13). "Come on in, the water's lovely. The Indian Ocean is an unspoilt alternative to the Caribbean, and a new hot spot for foreign buyers. Time to go island-hopping". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "On Lundhufushi, a tiny private island 40 minutes by plane from Malé, the 12 Blues Resort and Spa has striking circular water villas designed in contemporary Arab style."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 12 Blues to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - While as an island, it would pass WP:GEONATURAL, I'm not too sure if 12 Blues is the actual name of the island. It appears that it refers to a failed resort hotel project on that island, as per The Times article posted above. The actual island seems to be named Lundhufushi. Perhaps the page should be moved to Lundhufushi. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago and no consensus. I'm not seeing any extensive coverage to meet GNG or WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. See below. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Google Books link above produces false positives only. Google News link above produces single sentence mentions, or people claiming to have been part of the orchestra. Searched The Wikipedia Library, no results for WSSSO, one result for the full name, which is a single sentence mention in this article. Google Scholar produces three results, of which both the second result (download link) and the third result both only mention the orchestra twice while referencing the research done by the first result. The first result is the only SIGCOV I could find. The researchers administered an online survey to 41 WSSSO youth in 2009 containing many Likert-style questions about their experience, and three open-ended questions: "why did you decide to take part ... why do you continue to take part ... what would stop you taking part? The article is entitled "Advanced youth music ensembles: Experiences of, and reasons for, participation", so it seems to discuss the experiences of being in an ensemble, rather than being a comprehensive history of WSSSO. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update - found 32 results on Newspapers.com. First result is SIGCOV, founding of the orchestra. But the rest of the results are more sketchy and WP:ROUTINE - advertisements, concert announcements and single sentence mentions (Person X is joining the orchestra / the orchestra is performing at location Y). I do not think this is enough. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)