This is a log of all
proposed deletion tags applied or endorsed by this user using
Twinkle's PROD module.
NOTE: I have been PRODing articles since before I realized that keeping a log would be helpful, and I began keeping a log just a little before I realized I could automate the process. I have done my level best to get every entry, and to get the timestamp correct. However, since I cannot view my deleted edits, there may be some errors. If you spot one, please do let me know.
Vanamonde93 (
talk) 13:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Reason: After a fairly thorough search, I cannot seem to find reliable sources with more than a passing mention of this organization. It therefore appears to fail
our notability guideline for organizations. Besides, it is entirely unsourced.
Reason: The article appears to fail our
notability guideline for organisations and institutes, as a search has failed to find significant, reliable coverage. The educational institute guideline, in my opinion, only covers the parent university, which has an article already.
Reason: The coverage currently available merely says that he was arrested in connection with the bombing; there is no in-depth coverage of this individual of any kind, and the article currently seems to fail
WP:BIO.
Reason: The coverage currently available merely says that he was arrested in connection with the bombing; there is no in-depth coverage of this individual of any kind, and the article currently seems to fail
WP:BIO.
Reason: The page has no indication of notability; there are any number of religious leaders in south Asia, and the content does not demonstrate why this one deserves an article. The tone is also unencyclopedic.
Reason: This is essentially a BLP Prod, because although there are sources in the article, the only one mentioning the subject by name is a list of alumni. I also searched for the number of times the subject has been cited as an author of scholarly work, and in my opinion they do not satisfy WP:SCHOLAR; hence the PROD.
Reason: This is currently a completely unsourced essay, on a topic which has doubtful value as a standalone article. What information exists can be easily covered in the main article, which is
Rendezvous with Rama (and its sequels).
Reason: No indication of notability in the article. No indication of substantial reliable coverage in any sources that I can find. Actors in the movie are not well-known enough that every one of their movies needs an article.
Reason: No indication of notability. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources that I can find. Lead actors are not well-known enough that all of their work is notable.
Reason: No indication that this person has received coverage in reliable secondary sources, and no indication that they have inherent notability either.
Reason: This is essentially a BLP PROD; there is no substantive coverage of this individual, the single source in the article does not really cover him, and the presence of the imdb link is the only reason I'm not actually tagging this for a BLP PROD.
Reason: The only reason this company has been covered in sources at all is because of "Choco Treasure," which they sell. Choco treasure has an article already; this one has no further encyclopedic value.
Reason: This is essentially a BLP Prod, as the only reference is the IMDB page of a movie he directed. There is no substantial coverage of him in reliable sources that I can find.
Reason: Non-notable social media term, which has received little to no coverage in reliable sources. The article cited is actually one of only two I could find that even uses the term, and the content in it is far from enough to support a standalone article.
Reason: This is essentially a BLPPROD; no sources are present in the article, and I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable sources that would help the subject meet GNG.
Reason: Essentially a BLPPROD: the only source in the article is a dead link, which cannot be verified. No coverage to be found in any reliable sources, thus fails GNG. No claim to meeting any other notability guideline.
Reason: The article about the band that created this album is currently at AfD. Whether or not that survives, I've done a fairly thorough web search, and can find no coverage of this. If that gets deleted, then this can be deleted under CSDA9.
Reason: I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable sources of this company; the only coverage is from press releases, and that is not sufficient to pass
WP:CORP.
Reason: I don't believe that this individual meets our notability guidelines. There is no coverage of him in reliable sources that I can find, so he fails
WP:GNG; and the film is not well known enough that it grants him notability.
Reason: After going over this article in some detail, I cannot see any inherent claim to notability, nor can I find sufficient coverage in sources to meet GNG.
Reason: Insufficient content here for a standalone article separate from
Earthsea (universe) and
Earthsea. There is no substance here from reliable secondary sources. Title is an implausible search term.
Reason: Lots of puffery here, but ultimately insufficient claim to notability. No coverage in secondary sources, and so does not meet
WP:GNG. Claims in the article about lots of publications, but cannot be seen on google scholar (suggesting they are from dodgy journals and publishers); research gate link shows much output but no impact (hasn't been cited a single time, thus fails WP:PROF). Vice-chancellor of a private university, but that is insufficient by itself in the absence of any other coverage/impact; private universities in south Asia are very common.
Reason: This article rests entirely on a single primary source: a list of crime statistics from the relevant national bureau. There is nothing to indicate that this particular statistic is of encyclopedic value, or that this list has received coverage in reliable sources.
Reason: I am unable to find evidence that this website meets
the general threshold for notability. There are passing mentions in some reliable sources, but nothing in depth; the article as it stood before my cleanup relied on self-published sources and twitter.
Reason: The sources used in this article are either
unreliable or do not contain substantive information about the subject. In at least one case, a source does not mention the subject at all.
Reason: Individual is of doubtful notability; press coverage has brief mentions, but little substantive material. Also, article is promotional in nature.
Reason: This topic has not received substantive coverage as a topic in independent reliable sources. All of the coverage is related to specific organizations, not the type of organization.
Reason: While the NFUR was reasonable when this was uploaded, this file is rendered redundant by
File:SaamanaCover.jpg, which was recently added to Wikipedia with a similar (but in my view stronger) non-free-use justification. This file depicts the logo of this organization, which is also present in the other file.
Reason: Article largely consists of
synthesis of reasonable material that could be covered at
Olive Ridley turtle or
sea turtle, and material about completely non-notable organizations and individuals. Also based on a single source, and is an orphan.
Reason: I am unable to find substantive coverage of this topic in independent reliable sources. Most search results are youtube videos and promotional links. The sources in the article are a local web news source whose language inspires no confidence in its reliability, and an advertising platform.
Reason: The article is completely unreferenced, and contains no substantive claim of notability. A search for sources turns up passing mentions in local news, but nothing substantive in intellectually independent
reliable sources, which is necessary for this to meet the
general notability guideline.
Reason: Minor advisory body; little-to-no coverage in RS besides the announcement of its creation; all policy-related material covered elsewhere of necessity; unlikely search term.
Reason: Merely contesting an election does not make a political party notable. None of the party's candidates appear to have held office; nor is there any substantial coverage of this party in reliable independent sources.
Reason: Actor of questionable notability; single source appears to indicate a peripheral role in the film being reviewed; no sources to indicate significant roles in notable,films, necessary to meet
WP:NACTOR; no evidence of his meeting
WP:GNG.
Reason:
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind covers the history of this organization; the state-level affiliate is not independently notable. Redirecting is pointless, as the search term is an unlikely one.
Reason:
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind covers the history of this organization; the state-level affiliate is not independently notable. Redirecting is pointless, as the search term is an unlikely one.
Reason: I don't think this fictional character has received enough coverage in reliable sources to have a standalone article. Every source I have found mentions his role in Greenmantle and elsewhere, and that's it; there's no notability independent of the novels.
Reason: I have done a fairly thorough search for sources, and I cannot see any substantive critical analysis of this character; any mention in reliable sources is largely restricted to plot detail. As such, a standalone article is not justified.
Reason: I have searched thoroughly through online sources, and I cannot see any substantive critical analysis of this character; any mention in reliable sources is largely restricted to plot detail. As such, a standalone article is not justified, as plot summaries are available in other articles.
Reason: Promotional; also likely not notable; lots of mentions of a one-off twitter campaign, but no substantive intellectually independent coverage that I can find. Searches confused by the use of a very common phrase, so I have potentially missed something.
Reason: An article without meaningful scope, essentially reproduced from a single press release. There are "national office bearers" not listed here, ie, the members of the national executive; further, the people in this list are not treated as a group by sources except in announcements like the one cited here. Additionally, this is redundant entirely to the template at the bottom.
Reason: I have spent a while looking for sources on this topic. All that I have found are either written by members or affiliates of this organization (meaning that they are not intellectually independent, as required by
WP:ORGIND) or are about a single report published by this group, that may constitute encyclopedic material about antisemitism, but does not establish notability for this group.
Reason: I just listened to some of their music, and found it delightful; but there are no references in the article, no independent sources used at all, and I'm unable to find any reliable sources discussing the topic in detail.
Reason: I am unable to find evidence that this topic meets
WP:GNG. There is very little source material at all, and what there is is uniformly non-independent, coming primarily from the websites of the schools that participate in this event. The text is also entirely unsourced, and a number of the web links broken; the page as it stands therefor also fails
WP:V.
Reason: Subject of this article does not appear to meet
WP:GNG or any other notability standard. News coverage consists of passing mentions only; his sport of choice is not nearly large enough in India for a national bronze medal to confer notability. He has coached notable athletes, but notability is
not inherited.
This is a log of all
proposed deletion tags applied or endorsed by this user using
Twinkle's PROD module.
NOTE: I have been PRODing articles since before I realized that keeping a log would be helpful, and I began keeping a log just a little before I realized I could automate the process. I have done my level best to get every entry, and to get the timestamp correct. However, since I cannot view my deleted edits, there may be some errors. If you spot one, please do let me know.
Vanamonde93 (
talk) 13:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Reason: After a fairly thorough search, I cannot seem to find reliable sources with more than a passing mention of this organization. It therefore appears to fail
our notability guideline for organizations. Besides, it is entirely unsourced.
Reason: The article appears to fail our
notability guideline for organisations and institutes, as a search has failed to find significant, reliable coverage. The educational institute guideline, in my opinion, only covers the parent university, which has an article already.
Reason: The coverage currently available merely says that he was arrested in connection with the bombing; there is no in-depth coverage of this individual of any kind, and the article currently seems to fail
WP:BIO.
Reason: The coverage currently available merely says that he was arrested in connection with the bombing; there is no in-depth coverage of this individual of any kind, and the article currently seems to fail
WP:BIO.
Reason: The page has no indication of notability; there are any number of religious leaders in south Asia, and the content does not demonstrate why this one deserves an article. The tone is also unencyclopedic.
Reason: This is essentially a BLP Prod, because although there are sources in the article, the only one mentioning the subject by name is a list of alumni. I also searched for the number of times the subject has been cited as an author of scholarly work, and in my opinion they do not satisfy WP:SCHOLAR; hence the PROD.
Reason: This is currently a completely unsourced essay, on a topic which has doubtful value as a standalone article. What information exists can be easily covered in the main article, which is
Rendezvous with Rama (and its sequels).
Reason: No indication of notability in the article. No indication of substantial reliable coverage in any sources that I can find. Actors in the movie are not well-known enough that every one of their movies needs an article.
Reason: No indication of notability. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources that I can find. Lead actors are not well-known enough that all of their work is notable.
Reason: No indication that this person has received coverage in reliable secondary sources, and no indication that they have inherent notability either.
Reason: This is essentially a BLP PROD; there is no substantive coverage of this individual, the single source in the article does not really cover him, and the presence of the imdb link is the only reason I'm not actually tagging this for a BLP PROD.
Reason: The only reason this company has been covered in sources at all is because of "Choco Treasure," which they sell. Choco treasure has an article already; this one has no further encyclopedic value.
Reason: This is essentially a BLP Prod, as the only reference is the IMDB page of a movie he directed. There is no substantial coverage of him in reliable sources that I can find.
Reason: Non-notable social media term, which has received little to no coverage in reliable sources. The article cited is actually one of only two I could find that even uses the term, and the content in it is far from enough to support a standalone article.
Reason: This is essentially a BLPPROD; no sources are present in the article, and I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable sources that would help the subject meet GNG.
Reason: Essentially a BLPPROD: the only source in the article is a dead link, which cannot be verified. No coverage to be found in any reliable sources, thus fails GNG. No claim to meeting any other notability guideline.
Reason: The article about the band that created this album is currently at AfD. Whether or not that survives, I've done a fairly thorough web search, and can find no coverage of this. If that gets deleted, then this can be deleted under CSDA9.
Reason: I cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable sources of this company; the only coverage is from press releases, and that is not sufficient to pass
WP:CORP.
Reason: I don't believe that this individual meets our notability guidelines. There is no coverage of him in reliable sources that I can find, so he fails
WP:GNG; and the film is not well known enough that it grants him notability.
Reason: After going over this article in some detail, I cannot see any inherent claim to notability, nor can I find sufficient coverage in sources to meet GNG.
Reason: Insufficient content here for a standalone article separate from
Earthsea (universe) and
Earthsea. There is no substance here from reliable secondary sources. Title is an implausible search term.
Reason: Lots of puffery here, but ultimately insufficient claim to notability. No coverage in secondary sources, and so does not meet
WP:GNG. Claims in the article about lots of publications, but cannot be seen on google scholar (suggesting they are from dodgy journals and publishers); research gate link shows much output but no impact (hasn't been cited a single time, thus fails WP:PROF). Vice-chancellor of a private university, but that is insufficient by itself in the absence of any other coverage/impact; private universities in south Asia are very common.
Reason: This article rests entirely on a single primary source: a list of crime statistics from the relevant national bureau. There is nothing to indicate that this particular statistic is of encyclopedic value, or that this list has received coverage in reliable sources.
Reason: I am unable to find evidence that this website meets
the general threshold for notability. There are passing mentions in some reliable sources, but nothing in depth; the article as it stood before my cleanup relied on self-published sources and twitter.
Reason: The sources used in this article are either
unreliable or do not contain substantive information about the subject. In at least one case, a source does not mention the subject at all.
Reason: Individual is of doubtful notability; press coverage has brief mentions, but little substantive material. Also, article is promotional in nature.
Reason: This topic has not received substantive coverage as a topic in independent reliable sources. All of the coverage is related to specific organizations, not the type of organization.
Reason: While the NFUR was reasonable when this was uploaded, this file is rendered redundant by
File:SaamanaCover.jpg, which was recently added to Wikipedia with a similar (but in my view stronger) non-free-use justification. This file depicts the logo of this organization, which is also present in the other file.
Reason: Article largely consists of
synthesis of reasonable material that could be covered at
Olive Ridley turtle or
sea turtle, and material about completely non-notable organizations and individuals. Also based on a single source, and is an orphan.
Reason: I am unable to find substantive coverage of this topic in independent reliable sources. Most search results are youtube videos and promotional links. The sources in the article are a local web news source whose language inspires no confidence in its reliability, and an advertising platform.
Reason: The article is completely unreferenced, and contains no substantive claim of notability. A search for sources turns up passing mentions in local news, but nothing substantive in intellectually independent
reliable sources, which is necessary for this to meet the
general notability guideline.
Reason: Minor advisory body; little-to-no coverage in RS besides the announcement of its creation; all policy-related material covered elsewhere of necessity; unlikely search term.
Reason: Merely contesting an election does not make a political party notable. None of the party's candidates appear to have held office; nor is there any substantial coverage of this party in reliable independent sources.
Reason: Actor of questionable notability; single source appears to indicate a peripheral role in the film being reviewed; no sources to indicate significant roles in notable,films, necessary to meet
WP:NACTOR; no evidence of his meeting
WP:GNG.
Reason:
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind covers the history of this organization; the state-level affiliate is not independently notable. Redirecting is pointless, as the search term is an unlikely one.
Reason:
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind covers the history of this organization; the state-level affiliate is not independently notable. Redirecting is pointless, as the search term is an unlikely one.
Reason: I don't think this fictional character has received enough coverage in reliable sources to have a standalone article. Every source I have found mentions his role in Greenmantle and elsewhere, and that's it; there's no notability independent of the novels.
Reason: I have done a fairly thorough search for sources, and I cannot see any substantive critical analysis of this character; any mention in reliable sources is largely restricted to plot detail. As such, a standalone article is not justified.
Reason: I have searched thoroughly through online sources, and I cannot see any substantive critical analysis of this character; any mention in reliable sources is largely restricted to plot detail. As such, a standalone article is not justified, as plot summaries are available in other articles.
Reason: Promotional; also likely not notable; lots of mentions of a one-off twitter campaign, but no substantive intellectually independent coverage that I can find. Searches confused by the use of a very common phrase, so I have potentially missed something.
Reason: An article without meaningful scope, essentially reproduced from a single press release. There are "national office bearers" not listed here, ie, the members of the national executive; further, the people in this list are not treated as a group by sources except in announcements like the one cited here. Additionally, this is redundant entirely to the template at the bottom.
Reason: I have spent a while looking for sources on this topic. All that I have found are either written by members or affiliates of this organization (meaning that they are not intellectually independent, as required by
WP:ORGIND) or are about a single report published by this group, that may constitute encyclopedic material about antisemitism, but does not establish notability for this group.
Reason: I just listened to some of their music, and found it delightful; but there are no references in the article, no independent sources used at all, and I'm unable to find any reliable sources discussing the topic in detail.
Reason: I am unable to find evidence that this topic meets
WP:GNG. There is very little source material at all, and what there is is uniformly non-independent, coming primarily from the websites of the schools that participate in this event. The text is also entirely unsourced, and a number of the web links broken; the page as it stands therefor also fails
WP:V.
Reason: Subject of this article does not appear to meet
WP:GNG or any other notability standard. News coverage consists of passing mentions only; his sport of choice is not nearly large enough in India for a national bronze medal to confer notability. He has coached notable athletes, but notability is
not inherited.