Reason: Unsourced list with undefined inclusion criteria. Lumps together individuals from multiple groups, from
Irish Volunteers to the pro-treaty forces during the Civil War, which arguably weren't even republican. We could have (sourced) lists of the dead for each conflict or organization, but this deserves TNT.
Reason: Unsourced list for years. In my opinion, it does not meet LISTN. Being located in the
Sudetenland is probably not a defining feature of towns especially since "Sudetenland" is vaguely defined and changed throughout history.
Reason: One of the three articles is nominated for speedy deletion. Of the others, one is Matthew Locke and the other is Matthew Lockwood. Fails
WP:DAB.
Reason: Unnecessary disambiguation page. Just two dabs at present, both are kinda
WP:PTM, and one of these topics is the primary one anyway (I would argue the dam, since it gets 5x as many pageviews), but Rihand currently redirects to the river. Hatnotes should be used for navigation here.
Reason: Judging from a bit of research, I can see that "landmark report" is often used when referring to previous publications, but it doesn't seem to have a fixed definition such that a list/disambig page could noncontroversially list examples. This also fails
WP:DABRELATED.
Reason: Unfortunately this fails
WP:LISTN (as well as
WP:LISTV, as it is unsourced). There isn't much coverage of named comets as a group separate from non-named ones.
Reason: I was unable to locate any substantial coverage on this phenomenon that would cause it to pass
WP:LISTN or other notability criteria. Current sources are just primary source database entries.
Reason: Cannot find significant coverage of this person. Virtually all coverage is about a 1944 photograph, known as "fusillé souriant"—there is one RS article about the photograph
[1], and one brief news announcement of a commemoration without any coverage of his life
[2]. Everything else that I've been able to find is non-RS (blogs,
self published book, and other SPS),
copied from a blog, or only passing mention.
Reason: This is a legitimate journal but not an impactful one per
WP:NJOURNALS. It is ranked in the bottom quartile of journals by impact factor and I am unable to find any substantial third-party coverage of it. Per
WP:V, "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)."
Reason: The cited sources do not appear reliable and (although I don't speak Turkish) I am not seeing other reliable coverage that would support the notability of the article.
Reason: Appears to be non-notable (neither being a candidate nor film roles that are not significant in notable production), cited sources are not in-depth, reliable, or independent.
Reason: None of these characters is actually known as "Jonathan Augustus" by itself in reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Most google results are to similarly named individual who was in the news briefly in 2019.
Reason: Mostly unsourced, unlikely to meet
WP:LISTN. The most important characters should be covered at the main article, but the rest of this is just
WP:NOT/
WP:FANCRUFT
Reason: Judging from Gbooks and Google Scholar, "shock punk" is not really a thing. This dab is
WP:XY as neither of the articles says anything about "shock punk".
Reason: Not self-created, no encyclopedic value given that we have many freely licensed photographs of Nuremberg defendants, at much better resolution, on Commons.
Reason: Unnecessary disambiguation page. Since there are only two topics covered on Wikipedia with this name, and one is primary, the page should not exist per
WP:ONEOTHER. (I changed the hatnote on the missionary's article to point to the filmmaker.)
Reason: Short-lived periodical that appears to fail
WP:GNG. The cited source has only 1 sentence coverage, and I cannot find any sources that give
WP:SIGCOV of this newspaper.
Reason: All of these are redlinks except
BNP Paribas, for which I can't find evidence that it is commonly abbreviated "BNPS". See
WP:Disambiguation, redlinks should only be used on dab pages when there's a blue link that discusses the topic.
Reason: This term is not even mentioned in either of the bluelinked articles, so it is not suitable for a dab page. It's not an English language term so wiktionary or interwiki redirect is clearly inappropriate.
Reason: I do not think that this lecturer meets NPROF or any other notability criterion. Fellowship is not an indication of notability and I was only able to find
one review of her book which does not show
WP:NAUTHOR.
Reason: Neither of the bluelinked articles mention a "students' battalion". Existence of this page fails WP:V as dab pages need to be supported by bluelinked articles that actually mention the dab.
Reason: So far, the only coverage of this new entity are
WP:ROUTINE announcements that don't meet
WP:NCORP. Can be mentioned on the pages of the two companies merging until significant coverage is generated (
WP:TOOSOON)
Reason: Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry (see also's don't count). This situation should be handled with hatnotes per
WP:ONEOTHER
Reason: Unsourced list with undefined inclusion criteria. Lumps together individuals from multiple groups, from
Irish Volunteers to the pro-treaty forces during the Civil War, which arguably weren't even republican. We could have (sourced) lists of the dead for each conflict or organization, but this deserves TNT.
Reason: Unsourced list for years. In my opinion, it does not meet LISTN. Being located in the
Sudetenland is probably not a defining feature of towns especially since "Sudetenland" is vaguely defined and changed throughout history.
Reason: One of the three articles is nominated for speedy deletion. Of the others, one is Matthew Locke and the other is Matthew Lockwood. Fails
WP:DAB.
Reason: Unnecessary disambiguation page. Just two dabs at present, both are kinda
WP:PTM, and one of these topics is the primary one anyway (I would argue the dam, since it gets 5x as many pageviews), but Rihand currently redirects to the river. Hatnotes should be used for navigation here.
Reason: Judging from a bit of research, I can see that "landmark report" is often used when referring to previous publications, but it doesn't seem to have a fixed definition such that a list/disambig page could noncontroversially list examples. This also fails
WP:DABRELATED.
Reason: Unfortunately this fails
WP:LISTN (as well as
WP:LISTV, as it is unsourced). There isn't much coverage of named comets as a group separate from non-named ones.
Reason: I was unable to locate any substantial coverage on this phenomenon that would cause it to pass
WP:LISTN or other notability criteria. Current sources are just primary source database entries.
Reason: Cannot find significant coverage of this person. Virtually all coverage is about a 1944 photograph, known as "fusillé souriant"—there is one RS article about the photograph
[1], and one brief news announcement of a commemoration without any coverage of his life
[2]. Everything else that I've been able to find is non-RS (blogs,
self published book, and other SPS),
copied from a blog, or only passing mention.
Reason: This is a legitimate journal but not an impactful one per
WP:NJOURNALS. It is ranked in the bottom quartile of journals by impact factor and I am unable to find any substantial third-party coverage of it. Per
WP:V, "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)."
Reason: The cited sources do not appear reliable and (although I don't speak Turkish) I am not seeing other reliable coverage that would support the notability of the article.
Reason: Appears to be non-notable (neither being a candidate nor film roles that are not significant in notable production), cited sources are not in-depth, reliable, or independent.
Reason: None of these characters is actually known as "Jonathan Augustus" by itself in reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Most google results are to similarly named individual who was in the news briefly in 2019.
Reason: Mostly unsourced, unlikely to meet
WP:LISTN. The most important characters should be covered at the main article, but the rest of this is just
WP:NOT/
WP:FANCRUFT
Reason: Judging from Gbooks and Google Scholar, "shock punk" is not really a thing. This dab is
WP:XY as neither of the articles says anything about "shock punk".
Reason: Not self-created, no encyclopedic value given that we have many freely licensed photographs of Nuremberg defendants, at much better resolution, on Commons.
Reason: Unnecessary disambiguation page. Since there are only two topics covered on Wikipedia with this name, and one is primary, the page should not exist per
WP:ONEOTHER. (I changed the hatnote on the missionary's article to point to the filmmaker.)
Reason: Short-lived periodical that appears to fail
WP:GNG. The cited source has only 1 sentence coverage, and I cannot find any sources that give
WP:SIGCOV of this newspaper.
Reason: All of these are redlinks except
BNP Paribas, for which I can't find evidence that it is commonly abbreviated "BNPS". See
WP:Disambiguation, redlinks should only be used on dab pages when there's a blue link that discusses the topic.
Reason: This term is not even mentioned in either of the bluelinked articles, so it is not suitable for a dab page. It's not an English language term so wiktionary or interwiki redirect is clearly inappropriate.
Reason: I do not think that this lecturer meets NPROF or any other notability criterion. Fellowship is not an indication of notability and I was only able to find
one review of her book which does not show
WP:NAUTHOR.
Reason: Neither of the bluelinked articles mention a "students' battalion". Existence of this page fails WP:V as dab pages need to be supported by bluelinked articles that actually mention the dab.
Reason: So far, the only coverage of this new entity are
WP:ROUTINE announcements that don't meet
WP:NCORP. Can be mentioned on the pages of the two companies merging until significant coverage is generated (
WP:TOOSOON)
Reason: Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry (see also's don't count). This situation should be handled with hatnotes per
WP:ONEOTHER