Reason: This article does not meet
WP:NFILM. The only reviews I could find are from three Christian websites, which briefly describe the plot and note whether it is appropriate for children being raised in the Christian faith. Those reviews are at Movie Mom (which is no longer live), Common Sense Media, and Dove.org. Setting aside whether those sources are reliable, none of the reviews meet the standard for
significant coverage as they are brief, highly context specific, and do not contain any additional relevant information about the film.
Reason: I recently nominated this article for
WP:PROD.
User:Elli has requested that this proceed by AfD instead, so here is the rational I provided on PROD:Per
WP:CORPDEPTH, there does not appear to be any significant coverage of this organization. All references appear to be trivial (i.e., to their predictions, rather than to coverage of the organization qua organization). (See also
User:NewsAndEventsGuy's
post here).I look forward to your thoughts.
Reason: The topic of this article appears to be overly broad and adequately covered by other articles. What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets. There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article. Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as
Technology transfer (for universities),
Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and
Trade secrets. As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG. Apart from trivial mentions regarding the show's Emmy wins, there are only only a few
WP:RSes:
[1],
[2], and
[3] were written around the time of the show's release, and focus more on the Georgia Aquarium than the show.
[4] and
[5] are pretty trivial.
[6] focuses on the subject of the particular episode (sea lions), rather than the show itself.
Reason: Fails
GNG and
NOTDICT. The article subject is a legal term of art describing a procedure in trademark practice in the United States. The sources added by
James500 are either how-to guides or forms for lawyers,
continuing legal education materials (which are generally just collections of primary sources [e.g., statutory materials or regulations] or outlines), or trivial mentions. I conducted a
BEFORE search via Google scholar and Google books found no
SIGCOV of this concept in a way that would allow this article to be other than a definition or how-to page.
Reason: Per
NSONG: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.I have found no coverage of this song outside of the context of reviews of the album.
Reason: Conducted
WP:BEFORE search and the only
significant coverage of this school appears to be from The Day, a local newspaper. There's no evidence that the previous Nathan Hale Grammar School and Elementary School, which may or may not be notable on their own, have any link to the Magnet School other than a shared name.
Reason: Fails
GNG and
NCORP. Per
BEFORE search, almost all of the sources are (1)
routine,
trivial coverage of the organization donating legos to a hospital; (2) interviews with the organization's founder; or (3) fluff pieces about the founder's setting a
Guinness World Record. I have not uncovered any independent sources covering the organization in-depth.
Upworthy, cited in the article, is definitely not an
RS.
Reason: Highly promotional article about a firearms standards development organization (i.e., an industry-run trade group that sets voluntary standards) that fails
NCORP. Almost all of the sources cited in the article are primary sources. The only sources I've been able to uncover that discuss the organization in-depth are from trade or gun hobbyist publications, which fails
ORGIND (particularly here, where the trade publications are also run by organizations that have ties to the firearms manufacturing industry).
Reason: Fails
GNG and does not appear to meet
NBAND. The sources cited in the article are not RSes:
DISCOGS,
Beat offers paid native content, Worldkustom.com has no editorial standards and appears to be an
SPS, and volt.fm is a website to track Spotify statistics. The Weekend Edition is the only RS, but that does not provide
SIGCOV. I have been unable to find additional sources from searching Google and TWL databases.
Reason: Fails
NBIO and
GNG Sources cited here and other sources I have found are all routine coverage or tabloid-style celebrity reporting. The "Education background" and "Career" sections are completely uncited.
Reason: Fails
NPOL and
NBIO. Currently, the
only source cited contains one sentence about the article subject: "Yongama Zigebe filled the secretary general position left vacant by Msomi." I could not find any other sources that provide
significant coverage of the article subject. The article subject does not meet any of the secondary criteria in NPOL because he is not an elected government official.
Reason: Fails
NCORP. Sources I could find are either
trade publications or routine coverage of funding. Only RSes I could find are a couple of articles in CNBC.
Reason: Fails
NCORP. The only coverage I could find or that is cited in the article is trivial. For example, sources 4 and 5 merely establish that the company's products
exist. Source 2 is trivial coverage about moving the company's headquarters. A Bloomberg company profile does not establish notability. The remaining sources do not fare any better.
Reason: Non-notable book. The sources cited here are either the book itself or a non-reliable website venerating the article's subject. Nothing in Google Scholar or Google Books showing any citations to the book or any analysis of it. In any event, this should be
blown up, and anything salvageable merged with
Sai Baba of Shirdi.
Reason:
Nthep has suggested that RfD is likely the proper venue for concerns with the revision histories of
Isla Phillips and
Savannah Phillips. Both of them are minor children who are far down in line to the British throne. Over the years, several editors have attempted to create articles about them, resulting in the redirect being restored each time. I propose
RD5-ing all of the diffs that contain those articles because there is no conceivable way Phillips meets
NBIO or
GNG, and information about her should be removed per
NPF.
Reason: Fails
CORPDEPTH. Nexttv is a trade publication and should not contribute to notability. The rest of the sources and sources I've found online are just brief mentions of the company. The source added in
good faith after removing PROD does not even mention the company. This can maybe be merged with
Ri-Karlo Handy, but I think that article already has the relevant information about the company and adding more would be
undue.
Reason: I am proposing the following diffs be deleted per
RD5:*
[7]*
[8] to
[9]*
[10] to
[11]*
[12] to
[13]Savannah Phillips:*
[14] to
[15]*
[16]*
[17] to
[18]*
[19] to
[20]Background: I requested REVDEL by emailing Nthep, who declined and said that a consensus for deletion would be needed. An
RfD discussion for these redirects was recently closed, in part on the basis of incorrect forum; per
BLAR, AfD is actually the appropriate forum.Rationale: Per RD5, revisions may be deleted for any valid reason under the
deletion policy, including lack of notability. Both of these subjects are minor children who lack notability. They are not royals, they are far down in line to the throne, and they have done nothing notable in their lives other than being born. Additionally, per
NPF we should remove content about non-public figures.
Reason: This article fails Wikipedia's guideline on living persons who are
notable for only one event. There's been no
sustained coverage of this story as of yet, and it's
too soon for an article; Wikipedia is
not a news site. Additionally, although this is not an attack page and it states clearly that the charges were dropped, we should be
wary of an article containing serious allegations involving child exploitation, anti-semitism, and bomb threats.
Reason: Wikipedia is
not a news site and it's
too soon for an article on a series of
crimes that will likely not have
lasting or
persistent coverage. This particular series of crimes are not particularly high-profile outside of NYC, and it's
run-of-the-mill coverage.
Reason: It's
too soon for an article on a government program that was
just funded and is in the early stages of planning, with no guarantee that it will actually be completed and limited details on what the program will do. Suggest draftifying as it might be finished by the end of 2024.
Reason: Non-notable
rapper. The article subject was not notable before he was arrested for murder, and he is not notable for the murder under
PERP or
BLP1E.
Reason: Non-notable
chess player. The sources cited here either do not contain significant coverage (e.g., a brief mention in a New York Timesarticle) or they are not reliable (e.g.,
ofchess.org). The only significant coverage I could find
[21] is not enough to meet the GNG.
Reason: Previously nominated for deletion in 2014 with low participation and very weak keep !votes. A clear case of
WP:NOTDATABASE that fails
WP:LISTN and is too
ephemeral to be properly maintained.
Reason: Although he meets
ANYBIO #1, that criterion only indicates likely, not presumptive, notability under the
GNG ("meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). After searching, I have not been able to find
significant coverage in
reliable sources.
Reason: I have not been able to find
significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet
WP:NBUILDING.
Reason: This article was previously deleted after an expired
PROD. I could not find
significant coverage of this documentary in
reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York TImessource states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to
National Geographic Channel might be appropriate.
Reason: Delete per
WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various
North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article.
Reason: This article does not meet
WP:NFILM. The only reviews I could find are from three Christian websites, which briefly describe the plot and note whether it is appropriate for children being raised in the Christian faith. Those reviews are at Movie Mom (which is no longer live), Common Sense Media, and Dove.org. Setting aside whether those sources are reliable, none of the reviews meet the standard for
significant coverage as they are brief, highly context specific, and do not contain any additional relevant information about the film.
Reason: I recently nominated this article for
WP:PROD.
User:Elli has requested that this proceed by AfD instead, so here is the rational I provided on PROD:Per
WP:CORPDEPTH, there does not appear to be any significant coverage of this organization. All references appear to be trivial (i.e., to their predictions, rather than to coverage of the organization qua organization). (See also
User:NewsAndEventsGuy's
post here).I look forward to your thoughts.
Reason: The topic of this article appears to be overly broad and adequately covered by other articles. What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets. There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article. Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as
Technology transfer (for universities),
Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and
Trade secrets. As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG. Apart from trivial mentions regarding the show's Emmy wins, there are only only a few
WP:RSes:
[1],
[2], and
[3] were written around the time of the show's release, and focus more on the Georgia Aquarium than the show.
[4] and
[5] are pretty trivial.
[6] focuses on the subject of the particular episode (sea lions), rather than the show itself.
Reason: Fails
GNG and
NOTDICT. The article subject is a legal term of art describing a procedure in trademark practice in the United States. The sources added by
James500 are either how-to guides or forms for lawyers,
continuing legal education materials (which are generally just collections of primary sources [e.g., statutory materials or regulations] or outlines), or trivial mentions. I conducted a
BEFORE search via Google scholar and Google books found no
SIGCOV of this concept in a way that would allow this article to be other than a definition or how-to page.
Reason: Per
NSONG: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.I have found no coverage of this song outside of the context of reviews of the album.
Reason: Conducted
WP:BEFORE search and the only
significant coverage of this school appears to be from The Day, a local newspaper. There's no evidence that the previous Nathan Hale Grammar School and Elementary School, which may or may not be notable on their own, have any link to the Magnet School other than a shared name.
Reason: Fails
GNG and
NCORP. Per
BEFORE search, almost all of the sources are (1)
routine,
trivial coverage of the organization donating legos to a hospital; (2) interviews with the organization's founder; or (3) fluff pieces about the founder's setting a
Guinness World Record. I have not uncovered any independent sources covering the organization in-depth.
Upworthy, cited in the article, is definitely not an
RS.
Reason: Highly promotional article about a firearms standards development organization (i.e., an industry-run trade group that sets voluntary standards) that fails
NCORP. Almost all of the sources cited in the article are primary sources. The only sources I've been able to uncover that discuss the organization in-depth are from trade or gun hobbyist publications, which fails
ORGIND (particularly here, where the trade publications are also run by organizations that have ties to the firearms manufacturing industry).
Reason: Fails
GNG and does not appear to meet
NBAND. The sources cited in the article are not RSes:
DISCOGS,
Beat offers paid native content, Worldkustom.com has no editorial standards and appears to be an
SPS, and volt.fm is a website to track Spotify statistics. The Weekend Edition is the only RS, but that does not provide
SIGCOV. I have been unable to find additional sources from searching Google and TWL databases.
Reason: Fails
NBIO and
GNG Sources cited here and other sources I have found are all routine coverage or tabloid-style celebrity reporting. The "Education background" and "Career" sections are completely uncited.
Reason: Fails
NPOL and
NBIO. Currently, the
only source cited contains one sentence about the article subject: "Yongama Zigebe filled the secretary general position left vacant by Msomi." I could not find any other sources that provide
significant coverage of the article subject. The article subject does not meet any of the secondary criteria in NPOL because he is not an elected government official.
Reason: Fails
NCORP. Sources I could find are either
trade publications or routine coverage of funding. Only RSes I could find are a couple of articles in CNBC.
Reason: Fails
NCORP. The only coverage I could find or that is cited in the article is trivial. For example, sources 4 and 5 merely establish that the company's products
exist. Source 2 is trivial coverage about moving the company's headquarters. A Bloomberg company profile does not establish notability. The remaining sources do not fare any better.
Reason: Non-notable book. The sources cited here are either the book itself or a non-reliable website venerating the article's subject. Nothing in Google Scholar or Google Books showing any citations to the book or any analysis of it. In any event, this should be
blown up, and anything salvageable merged with
Sai Baba of Shirdi.
Reason:
Nthep has suggested that RfD is likely the proper venue for concerns with the revision histories of
Isla Phillips and
Savannah Phillips. Both of them are minor children who are far down in line to the British throne. Over the years, several editors have attempted to create articles about them, resulting in the redirect being restored each time. I propose
RD5-ing all of the diffs that contain those articles because there is no conceivable way Phillips meets
NBIO or
GNG, and information about her should be removed per
NPF.
Reason: Fails
CORPDEPTH. Nexttv is a trade publication and should not contribute to notability. The rest of the sources and sources I've found online are just brief mentions of the company. The source added in
good faith after removing PROD does not even mention the company. This can maybe be merged with
Ri-Karlo Handy, but I think that article already has the relevant information about the company and adding more would be
undue.
Reason: I am proposing the following diffs be deleted per
RD5:*
[7]*
[8] to
[9]*
[10] to
[11]*
[12] to
[13]Savannah Phillips:*
[14] to
[15]*
[16]*
[17] to
[18]*
[19] to
[20]Background: I requested REVDEL by emailing Nthep, who declined and said that a consensus for deletion would be needed. An
RfD discussion for these redirects was recently closed, in part on the basis of incorrect forum; per
BLAR, AfD is actually the appropriate forum.Rationale: Per RD5, revisions may be deleted for any valid reason under the
deletion policy, including lack of notability. Both of these subjects are minor children who lack notability. They are not royals, they are far down in line to the throne, and they have done nothing notable in their lives other than being born. Additionally, per
NPF we should remove content about non-public figures.
Reason: This article fails Wikipedia's guideline on living persons who are
notable for only one event. There's been no
sustained coverage of this story as of yet, and it's
too soon for an article; Wikipedia is
not a news site. Additionally, although this is not an attack page and it states clearly that the charges were dropped, we should be
wary of an article containing serious allegations involving child exploitation, anti-semitism, and bomb threats.
Reason: Wikipedia is
not a news site and it's
too soon for an article on a series of
crimes that will likely not have
lasting or
persistent coverage. This particular series of crimes are not particularly high-profile outside of NYC, and it's
run-of-the-mill coverage.
Reason: It's
too soon for an article on a government program that was
just funded and is in the early stages of planning, with no guarantee that it will actually be completed and limited details on what the program will do. Suggest draftifying as it might be finished by the end of 2024.
Reason: Non-notable
rapper. The article subject was not notable before he was arrested for murder, and he is not notable for the murder under
PERP or
BLP1E.
Reason: Non-notable
chess player. The sources cited here either do not contain significant coverage (e.g., a brief mention in a New York Timesarticle) or they are not reliable (e.g.,
ofchess.org). The only significant coverage I could find
[21] is not enough to meet the GNG.
Reason: Previously nominated for deletion in 2014 with low participation and very weak keep !votes. A clear case of
WP:NOTDATABASE that fails
WP:LISTN and is too
ephemeral to be properly maintained.
Reason: Although he meets
ANYBIO #1, that criterion only indicates likely, not presumptive, notability under the
GNG ("meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). After searching, I have not been able to find
significant coverage in
reliable sources.
Reason: I have not been able to find
significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet
WP:NBUILDING.
Reason: This article was previously deleted after an expired
PROD. I could not find
significant coverage of this documentary in
reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York TImessource states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to
National Geographic Channel might be appropriate.
Reason: Delete per
WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various
North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article.