Reason: This fictional character fails to meet
WP:GNG and I don't see an applicable SNG where this character would qualify. A cursory search for sources found only two reliable sources, neither of which was in-depth. The article appears to be a lot of fancruft original research.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: There's no claim of notability. The sources cited tend to be family histories or drive-by local news coverage. Information from the "Library of Virginia" is material the subject herself donated, not independent scholarship. This is another of
Mitzi.humphrey's genealogical projects.
Reason: This episode has no claim to notability. I found very little in the way of independent discussion of this episode. It's an unsatisfactory article, as is.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NCORP. Created by an
SPA, this article has been totally unreferenced from the beginning. While Israel has several such preservation groups, this specific chapter in Modi’in isn't notable. A cursory search revealed no independent sources about the organization.
Reason: This is another
Billy Hathorn Louisiana biography without notability. The subject fails
WP:SOLDIER and
WP:GNG. The LA Secretary of State link only confirms his wife's voter registration and
Find a Grave is
self-published so this article rests on only one source,
this book. While that source might be reliable (the entry indicates it's based on the family's documents, not independent research), it doesn't connote notability.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ANYBIO.
WP:NATHLETE doesn't include either swimming or the European Games. I found no reliable independent sources for the subject.
Reason: This is essentially an unreferenced BLP. All the "sources" only go to places where the subject was "seen." None of the details of the biography are backed up and the subject isn't
generally notable.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. This article's been unreferenced for ten years. Everything I could find online are from websites mirroring or cribbing this Wikipedia article.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Most of what I could find online about the subject is US Dept of Defense media failing
WP:SIGCOV. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. The only reasonable coverage I could find are pieces from Stars & Stripes about sports results, which don't make the school notable. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP. This reads like a promotion piece because the source material is almost solely PR. The
BuzzFeed piece says specifically "BuzzFeed may collect a small share of sales from the links on this page" which indicates it's an ad, not real coverage.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. (Per
WP:BEFORE I checked and found most of the coverage mentioning the school is about the school's most famous alumna,
Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti. Coverage was otherwise not independent or not reliable. As
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't apply there's no reason to retain this sad WikiEd class project.
Reason: Subject isn't notable as he fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL. The Arabic-language version of this article is just as small and unreferenced. A search in English revealed almost nothing and a search in Arabic found only mere mentions like
this and
this.
Reason: Unreferenced stub.
WP:GEOLAND does not presume notability without sources. The sources I could find were mere mentions, nothing significant to make
WP:GNG.
Reason: Subject isn't notable; this article relies heavily on
a student-authored blog, mostly listing notable former students rather than any analysis of the halls themselves.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NPOL. The sources I could find were
routine coverage from previous failed campaigns. This is an obvious advertisement ahead of the next election by a CoI editor.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. There's the one odious instance from
Borat: content which was deemed unworthy of being included in the article about
Kazakhstan. A merge back to that article wouldn't make sense.
Reason: Subject fail
WP:BKBRIT and
WP:GNG. The airspacemag and smithsonian links are both linked to the publisher. The BEFORE search indicated only mere mentions like
this or websites selling the book.
Reason: Subject isn't notable per
WP:BLP1E. All the sources cited (plus what I could find) focus upon this one-off case of smuggling. He's otherwise a low-profile individual. I don't think the subject merits a standalone permanent-stub (because there's nothing more to write) article.
Reason: This isn't an encyclopedic article; it's been tagged as unsourced since 2007. Wiktionary already has a definition for this word and sufficient encyclopedia articles on specific types of cages don't require an article about a cage as a type of enclosure.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNG. These deficiencies have been noted for three years and I don't suspect the subject will meet criteria anytime in the future. The few sources I could find were mere mentions falling short of SIGCOV.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:ANYBIO,
WP:GNG, and
WP:PROF. After stripping away every article and citation associated with the subject, essentially nothing is left.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:BIO1E. There's coverage on the murder and his subsequent execution, but that's it. Comer was otherwise a low-profile individual.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MILUNIT. Most of the online hits are mirrors of Wikipedia. It's been unsourced since 2009, which I take as evidence that no one has information on the subject.
Reason: Subject has no claim to notability. All of the coverage I could find is local and most of it has to do with a recent criminal accusation against a teacher there. The coverage is not about the school. Other
ROUTINE coverage does not pass the standard for GNG, in my opinion. This article has been unsourced for ten years, which leads me to believe that no reliable independent sources exist.
Reason: Article makes no independently verified claim of notability. Per BEFORE, the subject seems to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NWEB. Stuff like
this and
this are mere mentions; not nearly enough.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. While ACCM is a publisher of Anglican thought, it is not the subject of any independent material I could find. Many of the sources I could find (including the one live link provided in the article) only briefly mention the subject; therefore, the subject fails
WP:GNG.
Reason: This list fails
WP:LSC as it lists NN companies and relies on the websites of the companies listed, which also runs afoul of
WP:SOURCELIST. We already have an article on
Civic technology. This list is being used as an advertisement in defiance of
WP:NOT.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:BLP1E. She is only known for briefly being a cadet; she wasn't even the first female graduate. The applicable content already exists at
History of women in the United States. Despite being mentioned in reliable sources, it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia keeping a standalone article on her. I don't think the GNG bar is that low.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:BIO1E,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:MILPEOPLE. There are reliable sources that examine the subject briefly, but only in the context of his relationship to Hitler. I don't think the bar for GNG swings that low and the fact that this article has been under-sourced for eight years indicates there was never much coverage on the subject to begin with.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I could find only a couple mentions of Je3, and nothing about the others so there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Europa. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I could find only
this brief mention and other mentions that Enceladus is broken up into quadrangles so there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Enceladus. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I could find only the NASA material that says their images cover a 15-quadrangle span so there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Enceladus. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. Some NASA material talks about their imagery as a 15-quadrangle series of maps but there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Tethys. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I found very little discussion of the quadrangles of Io, so there's no case for
WP:GNG. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable.NASA published maps described as a 15-quadrangle series but there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Ganymede. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. Some NASA material talks about their imagery as a 15-quadrangle series of maps but there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Dione. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. Because this school is not even a year old, the only news coverage is
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stories about the new school.
Reason: This is a problematic article tagged for multiple issues for months with no fixes; the subject fails
WP:ANYBIO and
WP:GNG. There's no assertion of notability that passes
WP:N.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. A cursory
WP:BEFORE search did not reveal
WP:SIGCOV from independent outlets; most of what I could find comes from the platforms that publish his work or are interviews of him.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NCORP and GNG. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to connote notability. This is a real company and customers have posted stuff online about their products but nothing useful. Even
this is a mere mention.
Reason: No claim of notability. Schools aren't automatically notable. Subject fails NCORP and GNG. The sister article in bn-wiki is similarly poorly written and sourced. From my BEFORE search in Bengala, I found little that was independent and reliable. I am not sure about
Samay updates.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG. The subject is in the Lesser Key of Solomon book but I cannot find sources to back up these many other claims. Short of the Lesser Key book, the subject is not notable and, since this article has been unsourced for twenty years, a fair bit of this may have caused
citogenesis.
Reason: This fictional character fails to meet
WP:GNG and I don't see an applicable SNG where this character would qualify. A cursory search for sources found only two reliable sources, neither of which was in-depth. The article appears to be a lot of fancruft original research.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: This article (and several others created by
User:Bearerofthecup) entirely rely (or almost entirely rely) on a single book from
Edwin Mellen Press, a vanity publisher. The article discusses an apocryphal story as if it were true. Not only are there no
reliable sources backing up the truth of these subjects there is little, if any, sources discussing the subjects as literature.
Reason: There's no claim of notability. The sources cited tend to be family histories or drive-by local news coverage. Information from the "Library of Virginia" is material the subject herself donated, not independent scholarship. This is another of
Mitzi.humphrey's genealogical projects.
Reason: This episode has no claim to notability. I found very little in the way of independent discussion of this episode. It's an unsatisfactory article, as is.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NCORP. Created by an
SPA, this article has been totally unreferenced from the beginning. While Israel has several such preservation groups, this specific chapter in Modi’in isn't notable. A cursory search revealed no independent sources about the organization.
Reason: This is another
Billy Hathorn Louisiana biography without notability. The subject fails
WP:SOLDIER and
WP:GNG. The LA Secretary of State link only confirms his wife's voter registration and
Find a Grave is
self-published so this article rests on only one source,
this book. While that source might be reliable (the entry indicates it's based on the family's documents, not independent research), it doesn't connote notability.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ANYBIO.
WP:NATHLETE doesn't include either swimming or the European Games. I found no reliable independent sources for the subject.
Reason: This is essentially an unreferenced BLP. All the "sources" only go to places where the subject was "seen." None of the details of the biography are backed up and the subject isn't
generally notable.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. This article's been unreferenced for ten years. Everything I could find online are from websites mirroring or cribbing this Wikipedia article.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Most of what I could find online about the subject is US Dept of Defense media failing
WP:SIGCOV. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no
independent critical coverage of the subject exists. The only reasonable coverage I could find are pieces from Stars & Stripes about sports results, which don't make the school notable. Because
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP. This reads like a promotion piece because the source material is almost solely PR. The
BuzzFeed piece says specifically "BuzzFeed may collect a small share of sales from the links on this page" which indicates it's an ad, not real coverage.
Reason: The subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. (Per
WP:BEFORE I checked and found most of the coverage mentioning the school is about the school's most famous alumna,
Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti. Coverage was otherwise not independent or not reliable. As
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't apply there's no reason to retain this sad WikiEd class project.
Reason: Subject isn't notable as he fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL. The Arabic-language version of this article is just as small and unreferenced. A search in English revealed almost nothing and a search in Arabic found only mere mentions like
this and
this.
Reason: Unreferenced stub.
WP:GEOLAND does not presume notability without sources. The sources I could find were mere mentions, nothing significant to make
WP:GNG.
Reason: Subject isn't notable; this article relies heavily on
a student-authored blog, mostly listing notable former students rather than any analysis of the halls themselves.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NPOL. The sources I could find were
routine coverage from previous failed campaigns. This is an obvious advertisement ahead of the next election by a CoI editor.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. There's the one odious instance from
Borat: content which was deemed unworthy of being included in the article about
Kazakhstan. A merge back to that article wouldn't make sense.
Reason: Subject fail
WP:BKBRIT and
WP:GNG. The airspacemag and smithsonian links are both linked to the publisher. The BEFORE search indicated only mere mentions like
this or websites selling the book.
Reason: Subject isn't notable per
WP:BLP1E. All the sources cited (plus what I could find) focus upon this one-off case of smuggling. He's otherwise a low-profile individual. I don't think the subject merits a standalone permanent-stub (because there's nothing more to write) article.
Reason: This isn't an encyclopedic article; it's been tagged as unsourced since 2007. Wiktionary already has a definition for this word and sufficient encyclopedia articles on specific types of cages don't require an article about a cage as a type of enclosure.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNG. These deficiencies have been noted for three years and I don't suspect the subject will meet criteria anytime in the future. The few sources I could find were mere mentions falling short of SIGCOV.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:ANYBIO,
WP:GNG, and
WP:PROF. After stripping away every article and citation associated with the subject, essentially nothing is left.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:BIO1E. There's coverage on the murder and his subsequent execution, but that's it. Comer was otherwise a low-profile individual.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MILUNIT. Most of the online hits are mirrors of Wikipedia. It's been unsourced since 2009, which I take as evidence that no one has information on the subject.
Reason: Subject has no claim to notability. All of the coverage I could find is local and most of it has to do with a recent criminal accusation against a teacher there. The coverage is not about the school. Other
ROUTINE coverage does not pass the standard for GNG, in my opinion. This article has been unsourced for ten years, which leads me to believe that no reliable independent sources exist.
Reason: Article makes no independently verified claim of notability. Per BEFORE, the subject seems to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NWEB. Stuff like
this and
this are mere mentions; not nearly enough.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. While ACCM is a publisher of Anglican thought, it is not the subject of any independent material I could find. Many of the sources I could find (including the one live link provided in the article) only briefly mention the subject; therefore, the subject fails
WP:GNG.
Reason: This list fails
WP:LSC as it lists NN companies and relies on the websites of the companies listed, which also runs afoul of
WP:SOURCELIST. We already have an article on
Civic technology. This list is being used as an advertisement in defiance of
WP:NOT.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:BLP1E. She is only known for briefly being a cadet; she wasn't even the first female graduate. The applicable content already exists at
History of women in the United States. Despite being mentioned in reliable sources, it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia keeping a standalone article on her. I don't think the GNG bar is that low.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:BIO1E,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:MILPEOPLE. There are reliable sources that examine the subject briefly, but only in the context of his relationship to Hitler. I don't think the bar for GNG swings that low and the fact that this article has been under-sourced for eight years indicates there was never much coverage on the subject to begin with.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I could find only a couple mentions of Je3, and nothing about the others so there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Europa. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I could find only
this brief mention and other mentions that Enceladus is broken up into quadrangles so there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Enceladus. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I could find only the NASA material that says their images cover a 15-quadrangle span so there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Enceladus. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. Some NASA material talks about their imagery as a 15-quadrangle series of maps but there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Tethys. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. I found very little discussion of the quadrangles of Io, so there's no case for
WP:GNG. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable.NASA published maps described as a 15-quadrangle series but there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Ganymede. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. Some NASA material talks about their imagery as a 15-quadrangle series of maps but there's no general notability about the subject of quadrangles on Dione. Unlike
List of quadrangles on Mars, none of the quadrangles here have articles written about them so a list is unnecessary.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:GNG. Because this school is not even a year old, the only news coverage is
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stories about the new school.
Reason: This is a problematic article tagged for multiple issues for months with no fixes; the subject fails
WP:ANYBIO and
WP:GNG. There's no assertion of notability that passes
WP:N.
Reason: Subject isn't notable. A cursory
WP:BEFORE search did not reveal
WP:SIGCOV from independent outlets; most of what I could find comes from the platforms that publish his work or are interviews of him.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:NCORP and GNG. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to connote notability. This is a real company and customers have posted stuff online about their products but nothing useful. Even
this is a mere mention.
Reason: No claim of notability. Schools aren't automatically notable. Subject fails NCORP and GNG. The sister article in bn-wiki is similarly poorly written and sourced. From my BEFORE search in Bengala, I found little that was independent and reliable. I am not sure about
Samay updates.
Reason: Subject fails
WP:GNG. The subject is in the Lesser Key of Solomon book but I cannot find sources to back up these many other claims. Short of the Lesser Key book, the subject is not notable and, since this article has been unsourced for twenty years, a fair bit of this may have caused
citogenesis.