![]() |
The result was redirect to Anita Dongre. A quick explanation. Based on numbers, there was one keep, two deletes, and including the nom's original intentions, three redirects. But numbers not being everything, the policy objections placed fell gently in the general direction of redirection. The keep was, unfortunately, although re-emphasised, based on a fundamental misundersatnding of the purpose of an online encyclopaedia. One delete was based firmly and convincingly on policy; the other based on the (promotional) tone of the article. To this, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP may be seen to apply. Finally, the three !votes for redirect presented the cleanest and, per WP:ATD, most logical result. ( non-admin closure) — fortuna velut luna 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Typical promotional work.Tried to redirect to Anita Dongre which was repeatedly reverted.Most of the sources contain no mention/trivial mention of the subject.Lone pseudo-importance seems to be that he is set to speak at UN Young Changemakers Conclave--a non-notable initiative of United Nations Information Centre for India and Bhutan. Winged Blades Godric 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to mention that this article is about an entrepreneur who is heading HOAD, the brand who's clothes are being worn by the Royal Duchess and major celebrities, the page is in compliance with all the policies laid out by wikipedia. The article was created with notable sources, and shows the exact figure of the subject, I recommend that this article should stay at wikipedia as the person is notable, however as you have mentioned, that he only spoke at UN, that's not true, through his philanthropy he has changed 5000 lives. What I would recommed that for the time being let's add this article to the category of a Wikipedia:Stub , therefore people would be able to add more things to the article.
https://www.outlookbusiness.com/specials/outstanding-women/empress-of-prt-3076 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shailaggarwal (
talk •
contribs)
16:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Where Notability is inherited:- " Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG" WP:GNG Pass "Significant coverage" : The subject in the article has significant coverage in the news articles "Reliable" & "Sources" : The sources are from known media house. "Independent of the subject" : The article does not include any links from the subject's website. "Presumed" : The subject is notable by blood and the also designation which he holds in the company (for example: There a page for Sundar Pichai, CEO google)
I have made my case for retaining this article, I hope I have justified that I was in compliance with all the points laid out by the wikipedia and therefore this page must be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shailaggarwal ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Essentially advocacy, as shown by the emphasis on his POV, and the extraordinarily inappropriate non-encyclopedic detail. Possibly a NPOV article can be written, but the first step is removing this. I say this just the same as I would say for commercial advertising. This should not be taken to indicate that I disagree or agree with the contributors POV, or the subject's POV--I would say the same in either case. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Flanaess. Flanaess, as the parent topic, is the clear choice for a redirect target. If material on Wolf Nomads there is removed in the future, the redirect can be taken to RFD as needed. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This topic fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Flanaess. The parent article is a natural redirect target for this. How much content is to be merged is left to editor discretion. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This topic does not currently establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleted by Ad Orientem per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental Conservation Right. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 07:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This is one of two articles (along with Environmental Conservation Right) by the user who's main source is Jaime Ubilla. I believe there to be a WP:COI given the editing from WP:SPAs. I think that the articles verge on WP:G11 as they do not have any real secondary sources and both seem to be so heavily essay-based that it would be difficult to turn into an encyclopedic article Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Hill School. For attribution purposes, given that a merger was performed Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not notable enough a school for it to have individual history page, per WP:GNG 1 and 4. Reasons cited for this page existing include that if it were not to exist, the main article would be too long; however, formatting difficulties and problems do not justify excessive page splintering. I suggest merging the article with The Hill School, and cropping out any unnecessary, non-notable, and flowery details that may render its length superfluous. The fact that the school became coeducational, and the fact that it has a summer school do not explain the necessity of this article's existence. I also suggest deleting the template page for the Hill School. Peapod21 ( talk) 23:08, June 21, 2017
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peapod21 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Given that it's apparently been cancelled, the consensus is to delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Two separate reasons for nomination. First, this is speculation, and the recent speculation is that this won't occur, at least not in 2017. Second, state visits are WP:MILL and don't all need to be covered in this way. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP, with some overtones of being a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person notable primarily as a founder of a polling firm. As always, our notability rules do not extend an automatic presumption of notability to every founder of every company -- we require reliable source coverage about her to demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG for that work. But the referencing here consists of two primary sources, one short blurb in an industry trade magazine, one even shorter blurbette that's about her company being acquired by another one and not in any meaningful way about her qua her, one post to a non-notable and non-neutral blog, and her entirely routine wedding announcement in The New York Times. Exactly none of this is the kind of "coverage" that it takes to demonstrate notability for the purposes of earning a Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Unanimous, with the exception of two anonymous comments which fail to cite any policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:V, WP:N and subsequently WP:BIO Loopy30 ( talk) 22:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Was deprodded without rationale. Single reference is from a source of dubious reliability. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 22:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article topic (Canadian sociologist, criminology) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Books aren't widely held/cited, so doesn't pass scholar notability guideline. Secondarily, the current draft reads like a CV and was written by a single-purpose account (if a COI, undisclosed). There are no suitable redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) reliable sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 22:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Then it should be easy to provide reliable, secondary sources that confirm your claim. Also these two comments are from Vancouver IPs—if you have an affiliation with Shantz, you need to declare it czar 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)is noted on that basis
The result was speedy keep. Eminently notable: WP:SKCRIT #3 may apply, but, either way, no reason to let this drag out for another 153 hours . ( non-admin closure) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
this looks like an obvious promotion of an organization violating WP:NOT:ADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 21:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
this is a promotion of the company which violates WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
the article is a promotion of the organization thus violating WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 20:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Difficult to see where notability is supposed to be. Most of the refs are about individual apps and n ot the company. Those that are about the company are directory style listings, blogs or interviews with key players. Nothing here is a reliable and robust source for notability. Reads very much like an advertisement and its orphan status tends to corroborate that. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 20:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yggdrasil. To allow merging of a mention there, if desired. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument. Sandstein 06:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument. Sandstein 06:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 02:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Satisfied with sources identified under "Danny Crawford", which is different from current title.— Bagumba ( talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. WP:NBASKETBALL does not presume notability of NBA referees. Coverage is predominantly WP:ROUTINE with brief mentions that he was referring a game. Dan Crawford (missionary) should be moved here. At best, place a hatnote to List of National Basketball Association referees. — Bagumba ( talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Season too far into the future. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Season far in future - no sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No sources about event far in future - WP:CRYSTAL TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete Company is non-notable - I could not find any reputable outside sources that might explain why this company is important. -- Martey ( talk) 18:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is basically a dictionary definition. It is currently unsourced, and it is hard to see how it could ever be a proper article, or even a stub. It does not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Delete as per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete as per G4. ( non-admin closure) FITINDIA 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The coverage that I could locate during a WP:BEFORE search is purely routine business announcements, press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage of a business. There is nothing that satisfies WP:CORP and no indication of a reason why this company qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Yes, it exists - but that's not enough. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Football friendlies. Non notable. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep ( talk) 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
An WP:INDISCRIMINATE (WP:NOT) listing of things that could be construed as types of terrorism.
Insofar as classification of terrorist incidents is a thing, in order to keep this from being indiscriminate (and WP:OR), the scope of the subject should be delimited (who classifies? classification based on means or ends?). It also needs to be demonstrated that the topic of classification of terrorism is discussed in sources in detail ( WP:GNG).
This is a one Wikipedia editor's original typology of terrorism inappropriately presented in WP:WIKIVOICE in articlespace. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG bd2412 T 16:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Tagged for speedy deletion under A7 (no indication of significance) and Deleted under that criterion DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:Nmusic. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Please note that one person should not use multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. Exemplo347 ( talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable soccer (sorry, footy!) player for a non-notable youth team. No coverage whatsoever in RS and I don't see anything that indicates he meets WP:NFOOTY. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:PERP. A nasty bit of work, but not worth an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This page seems to be a self made page for a complete unknown person currently underserving of an encyclopaedic entry. There doesn't seem to be any reason to keep the page active upon evaluating the sources; one is the Daily Mail, a wholly unreliable source; the Cambridge Post article does not seem to exist any longer; one source is from the NSO which has no record of reliability and again could have been written by the subject of the article themselves; and finally, being featured in the prospectus of a secondary school does not constitute anything besides proof of being a student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T1grr ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Attention on Ms Benn's comes in two ways: she's a local councillor and a failed Parliamentary candidate. This fails WP:NPOL. However, she has also attracted some attention as Tony Benn's granddaughter, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If we exclude routine election coverage and mentions in articles about her family, there's very little left that's actually about her. The main thing left is this spat with Andrew Fisher, that is better covered on his page. This article was up for AfD twice before, with a "keep" decision in 2009 and "no consensus" decision in 2010. Expectations of notability have tightened since then, so I think it's worth re-considering this article. I would also note that there's been not much more recently on Ms Benn: no evidence of lasting significance. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. this has been discussed recently on talk page. Whilst it looks like lots of sources, almost all the sources that I could access do not even mention the society. The article uses WP:SYNTH by padding out the achievements of individual members and using sources not even about the society. The sum total of members achievements does not equate to notability of the society. Michael Kmit for example uses about 10 of the 50 sources. LibStar ( talk) 14:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy deletion (G11). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 06:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable, promotional article - speedy deletion template removed by brand new editor Melcous ( talk) 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Opened by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no references or links and not a SHRED of notability. Hitotsubashi Group has been exposed they are NOT notable WP:GNG fail and that is the TRUTH Mikey 38291 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)— Mikey 38291 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ah well, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. Apologies for wasting your time. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Wikipedia shouldn't just be a repository for huge pages full of stats, with no accompanying explanation or encyclopedic context. The main article at United Kingdom general election, 2017 can provide an external link to the BBC's page of detailed vote counts, and furthermore all this information is already found on the pages of the individual constituencies, with explanatory text. If this is deleted, then I would expect the equivalent ones for 2015 and 2010 to follow. Thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable mma fighter - des not meet WP:NMMA PRehse ( talk) 12:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR.Only media presence is in playing a singular role in a regional TV soap. Winged Blades Godric 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Wanna One. Sandstein 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Snowflake91 ( talk) 09:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Wanna One. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, no notable solo work of any kind. Snowflake91 ( talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jytdog's argument is persuasive. Sandstein 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This has been tagged for cleanup for almost a decade, and the page is almost entirely copied from Evaluation anyway. Famous dog (c) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes there is a claim of notability. And refs, so no speedy. The claim to notability is fairly preposterous, and the refs don't convince. TheLongTone ( talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ...and moving to List of murdered musicians. If the said list gets expanded in the future, then Clarityfiend's suggestion of renaming the list to "Lists" can also be undertaken. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no relevant connection between murder victims and musicians. The page has no relevant sources except a ranker page which list 26 not 15 people.. Legacypac ( talk) 07:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Elections in New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete as a topic not notable enough for a standalone article. Independent voters in New Jersey, regardless of the name, do not significantly differ from independents in any other U.S. state and no claim of that has been made in the article. The definition of an independent voter is already appropriately covered in the Independent voter and Unenrolled voter articles, and I don't see any useful content that could justify a merge. Slon02 ( talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rhododendrites with the following rationale " WP:NACADEMIC #6". First, let's not forget that WP:PROF is a supplement to WP:GNG and cannot overrule it. I am, nonetheless, biased favorably towards inclusion of academics, but I don't think this one meets any PROF criteria. I don't see any publications to speak of, suggesting he came from the administrative track. Further, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Well, it is debatable it this is a major institution - to me this is a minor regional university with no significant world wide impact, so - not major (it is the very definition of minor). Further, the very existence of this individual is hard to prove: no mention of him on the university webpage, google hits are wiki mirrors and forks, cited article does not seem to exist in google outside said mirrors and forks, I don't see said article on HighBeam, GNews, etc. If this is not a WP:HOAX it sure as hell doesn't have much to defend itself with, and it very clearly fails WP:GNG otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Substub about webcomic. Got no consensus years back in the day where existence=notability. Nothing has improved since. Fails WP:GNG just like it did back then. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Deleted upon request. G7ed by Fuhghettaboutit. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This is based entirely on primary sources (her own website, her own Instagram, the website of her publisher, Amazon.com) with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all, and the only notability claim even being attempted here is that she made Amazon's bestseller list in a highly specialized and rarefied category. A single-vendor bestseller list does not count as a notability claim for our purposes, however — to attain notability for making a bestseller list, a writer needs to have hit a list on the order of The New York Times or The Globe and Mail, not just one bookstore (whether online or physical). As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist —they must have a credible notability claim per AUTHOR, and the reliable source coverage in media to properly support it, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 04:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Poorly referenced article about a book, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NBOOK is that it exists. The only two references here are a copy of the book in PDF format, and the website of the organization that published it -- which makes them both primary sources that cannot carry notability. As always, a book does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be nominally verified by metareferencing it to itself; a book needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media which are independent of its own publisher's self-promotion efforts, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 04:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
List of dubious value; it serves to group animated films which were submitted for consideration (of which only one ever actually got an actual nomination) to a film award that has nothing whatsoever to do with animation. "List of X which are also Q" is not a thing we do on Wikipedia, if X and Q are unconnected traits that have no defining relationship to each other. Bearcat ( talk) 04:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. self-written spam for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO; apparent WP:Autobiography. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 04:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Poorly written mess on a non-notable defeated political candidate. All coverage related to her extreme views when she was a candidate for office. No in-depth coverage in reliable or quality sources. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Furthermore, the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer and political edit warrior, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothycrice/Archive. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Problematic contributors can still have been capable of finding notable topics we weren't covering, and starting articles on them.
I have never heard of a policy or discussion that authorized the blanket deletion of all of the articles started by contributors who were found to be problematic. If there have been rare instances where ARB of the WMF office have authorized this, I have never heard of them. If nominator can't find a specific discussion authorizing the blanket deletion of all articles started by Timothycrice, then I would encourage them to strike out that part of their nomination. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If so, this is a serious misinterpretation of "in-depth coverage". A nominator made the same mistake in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck. DGG's comment said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do , not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability." Geo Swan ( talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Woah! Her party would not allow her to run as a candidate in 2016. Surely being barred from running as a candidate is more notable than being allowed to run, and then losing?
The Independent wrote: "Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said the views espoused by Ms Waters, who appeared on far-right Swedish online platform Red Ice TV this month, made him feel “uncomfortable” and the party's national executive committee would be looking at her record later on Friday."
What this is, is International coverage. Ms Waters is notable enough to be interviewed in foreign countries. She has an International reputations, had one in 2016. Nominator seemed to assert the consensus at WP:RSN was a blanket disallowal of the use of Breitbart. No offense, but I didn't take this assertion at face value. I found there is a long discussion going on at RSN, right now. Reasonable people there are saying the same thing Warofdreams said: "Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors". Breitbart's writers have written about her on numerous occasions.
AusLondonder could you lay out your specific concerns about using Breitbart references in this article, at RSN? Could you lay out specific concerns about each Breitbart article that covered Waters, on the article's talk page?
Even if we preclude the 2017 coverage, and all Breitbart coverage, this google news search tosses up coverage of Waters in multiple contexts:
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable short film. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 03:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a state political party chair and as an as-yet-nonwinning candidate in a future election. As always, neither of these are claims of notability that constitute a free pass over WP:NPOL -- state political party chairs can have articles if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG, but are not guaranteed articles just for existing if the sourcing isn't there, and unelected candidates for office get articles only if they already cleared a notability standard independently of the candidacy. But the sourcing here is more than 50 per cent primary sources (her own campaign website, her own social networking profiles, Ballotpedia), whereas the sources that do count as media coverage are all in the context of her candidacy itself (which is routine and not notability-assisting, because every candidate in any election always gets as much coverage for that as has been shown here.) So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not a notable surname per WP:APONOTE as there aren't at least two notable people with the name. APONOTE also mentions that a properly sourced name article may still be notable without a list. However, there is not a source in sight to verify any of the information provided in the article. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix ( talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is a puff piece written by a paid agent. In any case I do not think he is notable. Many links are dead and many, if any, of the WP:RS do not actually refer to him. Bosley John Bosley ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Misleading list, which serves little purpose at its current state. Only very few institutes are listed compared to the number rated and the ratings are not kept up to date. Sources are missing and one column (QS) appears to be repeated, but for two years no one was willing to do the effort. There might also be a copyright issue with copying an entire list from a source (ETA: per WP:CIL). Muhandes ( talk) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
COMMENT: I was going to bring this up on the Copyright board, as this does seem to run afoul of WP:CIL as it contains numerous complete lists that were based on subjective creative criteria, thus are a form of creative expression by the list compilers. Category:Rankings of universities and colleges in India contains several similar lists that were completely copied from their sources. Crow Caw 17:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
--Keep - this encyclopaedia has articles on the Ivy League and the Russell Group, so cannot it not have the same for Indian universities? Vorbee ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON biography of a singer, notable only as an as yet non-winning contestant in a reality show whose season just commenced ten days ago. As always, the simple fact of being a competitor on a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia -- she needs to either win the competition at the end of the series, or subsequently go on to pass WP:NMUSIC in exactly the same way as any other singer, to get a standalone WP:BLP about her. Bearcat ( talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, and per Nikki311, whose rationale when prodding was "No evidence this is even a real championship. It isn't listed on OVW's roster page with the other current champions. Either way, it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources." - The Magnificentist 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E of a political aide, whose only stated claim of notability is that he wrote the first draft (but not the finished product) of a single piece of legislation. And he isn't the subject of the article's only source, either, but merely gives brief soundbite about a different piece of legislation than the one he worked on. It's not entirely impossible that Crittenden might have a stronger claim of notability and better sourceability than the creator actually attempted to show (it was created by Ottawahitech, a user who has been permanently editblocked for persistently doing the bare minimum needed to show that their choice of topics existed, rather than actually putting in enough work to demonstrate that the topics were notable) -- so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to US media coverage circa 1993 can put in the work to salvage it, but what's here isn't enough. Bearcat ( talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. The references are simply mentions in passing, confirming his existence. The investigations that he was a part he wasn't even the lead officer. No evidence of any individual notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given the lack of opposition to the keep assertions, I am closing this Afd. Would suggest waiting for some time to allow editors to improve the article before renominating this for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what makes this theatre actor notable. Few mentions in passing, niche interview, I am afraid that doesn't suffice for WP:CREATIVE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:MILL cellphone. Article has no references; notability has not been established.
Deprodded by one "SMSNG" with the edit summary " Samsung is notable" without addressing the concern in the PROD rationale. — Keφr 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
After several declines at AfC, article was simply moved to mainspace. Other than trivial mentions, advertisements, and non-independent references, not a single in-depth source currently. And searches turned up virtually no coverage, let alone any in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll work on improving the article, but if the requirements for notability are "major reviews" that won't be one of the things I can change. There are no specific criteria for what is a "major review" and this author's work won't be reviewed by a major publication because of the nature of the topic. I didn't disregard the editors comments. The criteria being set for declining publication of the page wasn't justified. There are several other authors who have pages on Wikipedia who do not meet this requirement. She's published 10 books, most of which are best sellers in the category on Amazon.com. Her latest release was a #1 new release in it's category. She's won literary awards and had her work featured in Publisher' Weekly. I believe this argument for deletion is invalid and is directly related to the topics she writes about.
Can you please provide examples of what you are asking for to provide proof of notability?
Internetgal ( talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations. There is some routine coverage in some search results showing slight, but not significant (or national), coverage. WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs ( talk) 02:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Recently created unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jacobin (magazine). ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon." Article dePRODded with reason "Journal edited by notable editors, stable-mate of notable title, some external sourcing, worth keeping". However, external sourcing is not independent (magazine of publisher) and that the editors are notable or that the foundation publishes another notable journal is irrelevant. Journal has publishesd just one issue recently, too new to have become notable yet. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Rachel, Nevada. So Why 09:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No conceivable notability for this motel, mention in two shows is not enough justification, and there is nothing else. WP is not a travel guide. There seem to be no substantial independent sources DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 08:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet general notability or biographical notability. Google search turns up no independent sources about him. Article has no references and has missing sections. Promotional. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Sources largely have nothing to do with the center itself. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep in one form or another. Ad Orientem and I had hoped that further relists could clarify the preferred way to keep this material but unfortunately despite three relists it's still only clear that the material should be kept but not in what form. I'm thus closing it as keep and not "no consensus" because the latter implies that there had been an equally strong case for deletion.
Merging or renaming can be discussed at the article's talk page. So Why 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Article is based almost entirely on primary sources about a doctrine of a minor religious group, and was probably originally created as a coatrack for the 'controversy' about the Watch Tower Society's 'association with the UN' as an NGO associated with the UN's Department of Public Information. A previous AfD was raised in 2006, with a result of Keep. However, the reasons given were essentially that 'both organisations are notable'. Notability of the organisations is not in question; the doctrine is not particularly notable. If deleted, notable aspects about the doctrine can be merged into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, and possibly History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
DO NOT REMOVE this valuable information. It is imperative that this available. It has saved lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.132.15 ( talk) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
While it's not a notable entry to the everyday Christian, for Jehovahs Witnesses is a huge turnaround from previous doctrine. If merged into the parent article many may miss this very important point. Please leave it as stand alone. Seeing it on a website such as Wikipedia where everyone goes for information may make someone ask important questions about what they have been taught as fact since the joining of the UN is kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeswords ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 08:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite a wealth of references, I can see none that convey notability or get even close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. Many listings and track listings, several nominations for awards but no evidence of a record in the country's charts etc. Several daughter articles have been spawned off the back of this article including separate articles on discography and individual albums, none of which, I suspect, are notable. Velella Velella Talk 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 04:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Possible WP:HOAX. Search found no evidence for the newspaper. Not listed at: http://naiindia.com/mi.html scope_creep ( talk) 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. As mentioned last week by Ad Orientem, this could have been closed as a no consensus last week. Proceeding with that closure; no prejudice against an early renomination – although I would suggest a discussion towards redirecting the article to the suggested pages before taking this up at Afd again. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This feels like a personal essay and doesn't seem to be getting any better anytime soon. At this point, I think we should just blow it up and start over. I suggest that we delete or possibly stubbify this version, but allow editors to create a new article on this topic. TheDracologist ( talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MRD 20 14 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No apparent notability, fails WP:GNG, formerly held a few unreliable, non-BLP sources, which have since been removed. Article feels like an advertisment and should be 'deleted. Lordtobi ( ✉) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nearly 10 months removed, I think it can be determined that this attack is a WP:NOTNEWS event. WP:ROUTINE coverage was sustained for about 3 days (mostly to mention ISIL's claim of responsibility) but no WP:LASTING impact has been established. Yes, this was covered by the media but according to WP:GEOSCOPE there needs to be a long-term affect on the area. This was tragic but please stick to policy. A redirect to a relevant list is also another option. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 07:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even haven't contested in any series other than karting. Which mean he is can't be considered as professional now. Corvus tristis ( talk) 04:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 07:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP1E - she does not appear to be notable as an academic, and Yelpgate or whatever it's called isn't nearly significant enough to make her notable now. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
— 96.233.109.66 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was convert to disambiguation page. So Why 07:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Too short to be useful as a standalone article, and completely unreferenced. I'm not even entirely sure that it exists because it doesn't have an ISO 15924 code, although it is mentioned here and there online. Unless better references are found, it should be at most mentioned in the Kokborok article. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was redirect to Anita Dongre. A quick explanation. Based on numbers, there was one keep, two deletes, and including the nom's original intentions, three redirects. But numbers not being everything, the policy objections placed fell gently in the general direction of redirection. The keep was, unfortunately, although re-emphasised, based on a fundamental misundersatnding of the purpose of an online encyclopaedia. One delete was based firmly and convincingly on policy; the other based on the (promotional) tone of the article. To this, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP may be seen to apply. Finally, the three !votes for redirect presented the cleanest and, per WP:ATD, most logical result. ( non-admin closure) — fortuna velut luna 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Typical promotional work.Tried to redirect to Anita Dongre which was repeatedly reverted.Most of the sources contain no mention/trivial mention of the subject.Lone pseudo-importance seems to be that he is set to speak at UN Young Changemakers Conclave--a non-notable initiative of United Nations Information Centre for India and Bhutan. Winged Blades Godric 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to mention that this article is about an entrepreneur who is heading HOAD, the brand who's clothes are being worn by the Royal Duchess and major celebrities, the page is in compliance with all the policies laid out by wikipedia. The article was created with notable sources, and shows the exact figure of the subject, I recommend that this article should stay at wikipedia as the person is notable, however as you have mentioned, that he only spoke at UN, that's not true, through his philanthropy he has changed 5000 lives. What I would recommed that for the time being let's add this article to the category of a Wikipedia:Stub , therefore people would be able to add more things to the article.
https://www.outlookbusiness.com/specials/outstanding-women/empress-of-prt-3076 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shailaggarwal (
talk •
contribs)
16:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Where Notability is inherited:- " Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG" WP:GNG Pass "Significant coverage" : The subject in the article has significant coverage in the news articles "Reliable" & "Sources" : The sources are from known media house. "Independent of the subject" : The article does not include any links from the subject's website. "Presumed" : The subject is notable by blood and the also designation which he holds in the company (for example: There a page for Sundar Pichai, CEO google)
I have made my case for retaining this article, I hope I have justified that I was in compliance with all the points laid out by the wikipedia and therefore this page must be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shailaggarwal ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Essentially advocacy, as shown by the emphasis on his POV, and the extraordinarily inappropriate non-encyclopedic detail. Possibly a NPOV article can be written, but the first step is removing this. I say this just the same as I would say for commercial advertising. This should not be taken to indicate that I disagree or agree with the contributors POV, or the subject's POV--I would say the same in either case. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Flanaess. Flanaess, as the parent topic, is the clear choice for a redirect target. If material on Wolf Nomads there is removed in the future, the redirect can be taken to RFD as needed. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This topic fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Flanaess. The parent article is a natural redirect target for this. How much content is to be merged is left to editor discretion. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This topic does not currently establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleted by Ad Orientem per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental Conservation Right. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 07:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This is one of two articles (along with Environmental Conservation Right) by the user who's main source is Jaime Ubilla. I believe there to be a WP:COI given the editing from WP:SPAs. I think that the articles verge on WP:G11 as they do not have any real secondary sources and both seem to be so heavily essay-based that it would be difficult to turn into an encyclopedic article Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Hill School. For attribution purposes, given that a merger was performed Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not notable enough a school for it to have individual history page, per WP:GNG 1 and 4. Reasons cited for this page existing include that if it were not to exist, the main article would be too long; however, formatting difficulties and problems do not justify excessive page splintering. I suggest merging the article with The Hill School, and cropping out any unnecessary, non-notable, and flowery details that may render its length superfluous. The fact that the school became coeducational, and the fact that it has a summer school do not explain the necessity of this article's existence. I also suggest deleting the template page for the Hill School. Peapod21 ( talk) 23:08, June 21, 2017
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peapod21 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Given that it's apparently been cancelled, the consensus is to delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Two separate reasons for nomination. First, this is speculation, and the recent speculation is that this won't occur, at least not in 2017. Second, state visits are WP:MILL and don't all need to be covered in this way. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP, with some overtones of being a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person notable primarily as a founder of a polling firm. As always, our notability rules do not extend an automatic presumption of notability to every founder of every company -- we require reliable source coverage about her to demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG for that work. But the referencing here consists of two primary sources, one short blurb in an industry trade magazine, one even shorter blurbette that's about her company being acquired by another one and not in any meaningful way about her qua her, one post to a non-notable and non-neutral blog, and her entirely routine wedding announcement in The New York Times. Exactly none of this is the kind of "coverage" that it takes to demonstrate notability for the purposes of earning a Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Unanimous, with the exception of two anonymous comments which fail to cite any policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:V, WP:N and subsequently WP:BIO Loopy30 ( talk) 22:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Was deprodded without rationale. Single reference is from a source of dubious reliability. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 22:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article topic (Canadian sociologist, criminology) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Books aren't widely held/cited, so doesn't pass scholar notability guideline. Secondarily, the current draft reads like a CV and was written by a single-purpose account (if a COI, undisclosed). There are no suitable redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) reliable sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 22:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Then it should be easy to provide reliable, secondary sources that confirm your claim. Also these two comments are from Vancouver IPs—if you have an affiliation with Shantz, you need to declare it czar 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)is noted on that basis
The result was speedy keep. Eminently notable: WP:SKCRIT #3 may apply, but, either way, no reason to let this drag out for another 153 hours . ( non-admin closure) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
this looks like an obvious promotion of an organization violating WP:NOT:ADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 21:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
this is a promotion of the company which violates WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
the article is a promotion of the organization thus violating WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 20:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Difficult to see where notability is supposed to be. Most of the refs are about individual apps and n ot the company. Those that are about the company are directory style listings, blogs or interviews with key players. Nothing here is a reliable and robust source for notability. Reads very much like an advertisement and its orphan status tends to corroborate that. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 20:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yggdrasil. To allow merging of a mention there, if desired. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument. Sandstein 06:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. One "keep" opinion is a pure vote, leaving us with only one "keep" that is an actual argument. Sandstein 06:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 02:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Satisfied with sources identified under "Danny Crawford", which is different from current title.— Bagumba ( talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. WP:NBASKETBALL does not presume notability of NBA referees. Coverage is predominantly WP:ROUTINE with brief mentions that he was referring a game. Dan Crawford (missionary) should be moved here. At best, place a hatnote to List of National Basketball Association referees. — Bagumba ( talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Season too far into the future. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Season far in future - no sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No sources about event far in future - WP:CRYSTAL TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete Company is non-notable - I could not find any reputable outside sources that might explain why this company is important. -- Martey ( talk) 18:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is basically a dictionary definition. It is currently unsourced, and it is hard to see how it could ever be a proper article, or even a stub. It does not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Delete as per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete as per G4. ( non-admin closure) FITINDIA 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The coverage that I could locate during a WP:BEFORE search is purely routine business announcements, press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage of a business. There is nothing that satisfies WP:CORP and no indication of a reason why this company qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Yes, it exists - but that's not enough. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Football friendlies. Non notable. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep ( talk) 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
An WP:INDISCRIMINATE (WP:NOT) listing of things that could be construed as types of terrorism.
Insofar as classification of terrorist incidents is a thing, in order to keep this from being indiscriminate (and WP:OR), the scope of the subject should be delimited (who classifies? classification based on means or ends?). It also needs to be demonstrated that the topic of classification of terrorism is discussed in sources in detail ( WP:GNG).
This is a one Wikipedia editor's original typology of terrorism inappropriately presented in WP:WIKIVOICE in articlespace. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG bd2412 T 16:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Tagged for speedy deletion under A7 (no indication of significance) and Deleted under that criterion DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:Nmusic. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 15:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Please note that one person should not use multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. Exemplo347 ( talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable soccer (sorry, footy!) player for a non-notable youth team. No coverage whatsoever in RS and I don't see anything that indicates he meets WP:NFOOTY. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:PERP. A nasty bit of work, but not worth an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This page seems to be a self made page for a complete unknown person currently underserving of an encyclopaedic entry. There doesn't seem to be any reason to keep the page active upon evaluating the sources; one is the Daily Mail, a wholly unreliable source; the Cambridge Post article does not seem to exist any longer; one source is from the NSO which has no record of reliability and again could have been written by the subject of the article themselves; and finally, being featured in the prospectus of a secondary school does not constitute anything besides proof of being a student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T1grr ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Attention on Ms Benn's comes in two ways: she's a local councillor and a failed Parliamentary candidate. This fails WP:NPOL. However, she has also attracted some attention as Tony Benn's granddaughter, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If we exclude routine election coverage and mentions in articles about her family, there's very little left that's actually about her. The main thing left is this spat with Andrew Fisher, that is better covered on his page. This article was up for AfD twice before, with a "keep" decision in 2009 and "no consensus" decision in 2010. Expectations of notability have tightened since then, so I think it's worth re-considering this article. I would also note that there's been not much more recently on Ms Benn: no evidence of lasting significance. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. this has been discussed recently on talk page. Whilst it looks like lots of sources, almost all the sources that I could access do not even mention the society. The article uses WP:SYNTH by padding out the achievements of individual members and using sources not even about the society. The sum total of members achievements does not equate to notability of the society. Michael Kmit for example uses about 10 of the 50 sources. LibStar ( talk) 14:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy deletion (G11). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 06:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable, promotional article - speedy deletion template removed by brand new editor Melcous ( talk) 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Opened by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no references or links and not a SHRED of notability. Hitotsubashi Group has been exposed they are NOT notable WP:GNG fail and that is the TRUTH Mikey 38291 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)— Mikey 38291 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ah well, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. Apologies for wasting your time. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Wikipedia shouldn't just be a repository for huge pages full of stats, with no accompanying explanation or encyclopedic context. The main article at United Kingdom general election, 2017 can provide an external link to the BBC's page of detailed vote counts, and furthermore all this information is already found on the pages of the individual constituencies, with explanatory text. If this is deleted, then I would expect the equivalent ones for 2015 and 2010 to follow. Thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable mma fighter - des not meet WP:NMMA PRehse ( talk) 12:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR.Only media presence is in playing a singular role in a regional TV soap. Winged Blades Godric 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Wanna One. Sandstein 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Snowflake91 ( talk) 09:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Wanna One. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, no notable solo work of any kind. Snowflake91 ( talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jytdog's argument is persuasive. Sandstein 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This has been tagged for cleanup for almost a decade, and the page is almost entirely copied from Evaluation anyway. Famous dog (c) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes there is a claim of notability. And refs, so no speedy. The claim to notability is fairly preposterous, and the refs don't convince. TheLongTone ( talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ...and moving to List of murdered musicians. If the said list gets expanded in the future, then Clarityfiend's suggestion of renaming the list to "Lists" can also be undertaken. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no relevant connection between murder victims and musicians. The page has no relevant sources except a ranker page which list 26 not 15 people.. Legacypac ( talk) 07:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Elections in New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete as a topic not notable enough for a standalone article. Independent voters in New Jersey, regardless of the name, do not significantly differ from independents in any other U.S. state and no claim of that has been made in the article. The definition of an independent voter is already appropriately covered in the Independent voter and Unenrolled voter articles, and I don't see any useful content that could justify a merge. Slon02 ( talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rhododendrites with the following rationale " WP:NACADEMIC #6". First, let's not forget that WP:PROF is a supplement to WP:GNG and cannot overrule it. I am, nonetheless, biased favorably towards inclusion of academics, but I don't think this one meets any PROF criteria. I don't see any publications to speak of, suggesting he came from the administrative track. Further, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Well, it is debatable it this is a major institution - to me this is a minor regional university with no significant world wide impact, so - not major (it is the very definition of minor). Further, the very existence of this individual is hard to prove: no mention of him on the university webpage, google hits are wiki mirrors and forks, cited article does not seem to exist in google outside said mirrors and forks, I don't see said article on HighBeam, GNews, etc. If this is not a WP:HOAX it sure as hell doesn't have much to defend itself with, and it very clearly fails WP:GNG otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Substub about webcomic. Got no consensus years back in the day where existence=notability. Nothing has improved since. Fails WP:GNG just like it did back then. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Deleted upon request. G7ed by Fuhghettaboutit. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This is based entirely on primary sources (her own website, her own Instagram, the website of her publisher, Amazon.com) with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all, and the only notability claim even being attempted here is that she made Amazon's bestseller list in a highly specialized and rarefied category. A single-vendor bestseller list does not count as a notability claim for our purposes, however — to attain notability for making a bestseller list, a writer needs to have hit a list on the order of The New York Times or The Globe and Mail, not just one bookstore (whether online or physical). As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist —they must have a credible notability claim per AUTHOR, and the reliable source coverage in media to properly support it, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 04:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Poorly referenced article about a book, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NBOOK is that it exists. The only two references here are a copy of the book in PDF format, and the website of the organization that published it -- which makes them both primary sources that cannot carry notability. As always, a book does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be nominally verified by metareferencing it to itself; a book needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media which are independent of its own publisher's self-promotion efforts, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 04:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
List of dubious value; it serves to group animated films which were submitted for consideration (of which only one ever actually got an actual nomination) to a film award that has nothing whatsoever to do with animation. "List of X which are also Q" is not a thing we do on Wikipedia, if X and Q are unconnected traits that have no defining relationship to each other. Bearcat ( talk) 04:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. self-written spam for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO; apparent WP:Autobiography. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 04:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Poorly written mess on a non-notable defeated political candidate. All coverage related to her extreme views when she was a candidate for office. No in-depth coverage in reliable or quality sources. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Furthermore, the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer and political edit warrior, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothycrice/Archive. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Problematic contributors can still have been capable of finding notable topics we weren't covering, and starting articles on them.
I have never heard of a policy or discussion that authorized the blanket deletion of all of the articles started by contributors who were found to be problematic. If there have been rare instances where ARB of the WMF office have authorized this, I have never heard of them. If nominator can't find a specific discussion authorizing the blanket deletion of all articles started by Timothycrice, then I would encourage them to strike out that part of their nomination. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If so, this is a serious misinterpretation of "in-depth coverage". A nominator made the same mistake in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck. DGG's comment said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do , not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability." Geo Swan ( talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Woah! Her party would not allow her to run as a candidate in 2016. Surely being barred from running as a candidate is more notable than being allowed to run, and then losing?
The Independent wrote: "Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said the views espoused by Ms Waters, who appeared on far-right Swedish online platform Red Ice TV this month, made him feel “uncomfortable” and the party's national executive committee would be looking at her record later on Friday."
What this is, is International coverage. Ms Waters is notable enough to be interviewed in foreign countries. She has an International reputations, had one in 2016. Nominator seemed to assert the consensus at WP:RSN was a blanket disallowal of the use of Breitbart. No offense, but I didn't take this assertion at face value. I found there is a long discussion going on at RSN, right now. Reasonable people there are saying the same thing Warofdreams said: "Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors". Breitbart's writers have written about her on numerous occasions.
AusLondonder could you lay out your specific concerns about using Breitbart references in this article, at RSN? Could you lay out specific concerns about each Breitbart article that covered Waters, on the article's talk page?
Even if we preclude the 2017 coverage, and all Breitbart coverage, this google news search tosses up coverage of Waters in multiple contexts:
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable short film. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 03:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a state political party chair and as an as-yet-nonwinning candidate in a future election. As always, neither of these are claims of notability that constitute a free pass over WP:NPOL -- state political party chairs can have articles if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG, but are not guaranteed articles just for existing if the sourcing isn't there, and unelected candidates for office get articles only if they already cleared a notability standard independently of the candidacy. But the sourcing here is more than 50 per cent primary sources (her own campaign website, her own social networking profiles, Ballotpedia), whereas the sources that do count as media coverage are all in the context of her candidacy itself (which is routine and not notability-assisting, because every candidate in any election always gets as much coverage for that as has been shown here.) So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not a notable surname per WP:APONOTE as there aren't at least two notable people with the name. APONOTE also mentions that a properly sourced name article may still be notable without a list. However, there is not a source in sight to verify any of the information provided in the article. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix ( talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is a puff piece written by a paid agent. In any case I do not think he is notable. Many links are dead and many, if any, of the WP:RS do not actually refer to him. Bosley John Bosley ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Misleading list, which serves little purpose at its current state. Only very few institutes are listed compared to the number rated and the ratings are not kept up to date. Sources are missing and one column (QS) appears to be repeated, but for two years no one was willing to do the effort. There might also be a copyright issue with copying an entire list from a source (ETA: per WP:CIL). Muhandes ( talk) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
COMMENT: I was going to bring this up on the Copyright board, as this does seem to run afoul of WP:CIL as it contains numerous complete lists that were based on subjective creative criteria, thus are a form of creative expression by the list compilers. Category:Rankings of universities and colleges in India contains several similar lists that were completely copied from their sources. Crow Caw 17:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
--Keep - this encyclopaedia has articles on the Ivy League and the Russell Group, so cannot it not have the same for Indian universities? Vorbee ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON biography of a singer, notable only as an as yet non-winning contestant in a reality show whose season just commenced ten days ago. As always, the simple fact of being a competitor on a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia -- she needs to either win the competition at the end of the series, or subsequently go on to pass WP:NMUSIC in exactly the same way as any other singer, to get a standalone WP:BLP about her. Bearcat ( talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, and per Nikki311, whose rationale when prodding was "No evidence this is even a real championship. It isn't listed on OVW's roster page with the other current champions. Either way, it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources." - The Magnificentist 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E of a political aide, whose only stated claim of notability is that he wrote the first draft (but not the finished product) of a single piece of legislation. And he isn't the subject of the article's only source, either, but merely gives brief soundbite about a different piece of legislation than the one he worked on. It's not entirely impossible that Crittenden might have a stronger claim of notability and better sourceability than the creator actually attempted to show (it was created by Ottawahitech, a user who has been permanently editblocked for persistently doing the bare minimum needed to show that their choice of topics existed, rather than actually putting in enough work to demonstrate that the topics were notable) -- so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to US media coverage circa 1993 can put in the work to salvage it, but what's here isn't enough. Bearcat ( talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. The references are simply mentions in passing, confirming his existence. The investigations that he was a part he wasn't even the lead officer. No evidence of any individual notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given the lack of opposition to the keep assertions, I am closing this Afd. Would suggest waiting for some time to allow editors to improve the article before renominating this for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what makes this theatre actor notable. Few mentions in passing, niche interview, I am afraid that doesn't suffice for WP:CREATIVE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:MILL cellphone. Article has no references; notability has not been established.
Deprodded by one "SMSNG" with the edit summary " Samsung is notable" without addressing the concern in the PROD rationale. — Keφr 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
After several declines at AfC, article was simply moved to mainspace. Other than trivial mentions, advertisements, and non-independent references, not a single in-depth source currently. And searches turned up virtually no coverage, let alone any in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll work on improving the article, but if the requirements for notability are "major reviews" that won't be one of the things I can change. There are no specific criteria for what is a "major review" and this author's work won't be reviewed by a major publication because of the nature of the topic. I didn't disregard the editors comments. The criteria being set for declining publication of the page wasn't justified. There are several other authors who have pages on Wikipedia who do not meet this requirement. She's published 10 books, most of which are best sellers in the category on Amazon.com. Her latest release was a #1 new release in it's category. She's won literary awards and had her work featured in Publisher' Weekly. I believe this argument for deletion is invalid and is directly related to the topics she writes about.
Can you please provide examples of what you are asking for to provide proof of notability?
Internetgal ( talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations. There is some routine coverage in some search results showing slight, but not significant (or national), coverage. WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs ( talk) 02:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Recently created unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jacobin (magazine). ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon." Article dePRODded with reason "Journal edited by notable editors, stable-mate of notable title, some external sourcing, worth keeping". However, external sourcing is not independent (magazine of publisher) and that the editors are notable or that the foundation publishes another notable journal is irrelevant. Journal has publishesd just one issue recently, too new to have become notable yet. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Rachel, Nevada. So Why 09:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No conceivable notability for this motel, mention in two shows is not enough justification, and there is nothing else. WP is not a travel guide. There seem to be no substantial independent sources DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 08:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet general notability or biographical notability. Google search turns up no independent sources about him. Article has no references and has missing sections. Promotional. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Sources largely have nothing to do with the center itself. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep in one form or another. Ad Orientem and I had hoped that further relists could clarify the preferred way to keep this material but unfortunately despite three relists it's still only clear that the material should be kept but not in what form. I'm thus closing it as keep and not "no consensus" because the latter implies that there had been an equally strong case for deletion.
Merging or renaming can be discussed at the article's talk page. So Why 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Article is based almost entirely on primary sources about a doctrine of a minor religious group, and was probably originally created as a coatrack for the 'controversy' about the Watch Tower Society's 'association with the UN' as an NGO associated with the UN's Department of Public Information. A previous AfD was raised in 2006, with a result of Keep. However, the reasons given were essentially that 'both organisations are notable'. Notability of the organisations is not in question; the doctrine is not particularly notable. If deleted, notable aspects about the doctrine can be merged into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, and possibly History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
DO NOT REMOVE this valuable information. It is imperative that this available. It has saved lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.132.15 ( talk) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
While it's not a notable entry to the everyday Christian, for Jehovahs Witnesses is a huge turnaround from previous doctrine. If merged into the parent article many may miss this very important point. Please leave it as stand alone. Seeing it on a website such as Wikipedia where everyone goes for information may make someone ask important questions about what they have been taught as fact since the joining of the UN is kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeswords ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 08:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite a wealth of references, I can see none that convey notability or get even close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. Many listings and track listings, several nominations for awards but no evidence of a record in the country's charts etc. Several daughter articles have been spawned off the back of this article including separate articles on discography and individual albums, none of which, I suspect, are notable. Velella Velella Talk 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 04:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Possible WP:HOAX. Search found no evidence for the newspaper. Not listed at: http://naiindia.com/mi.html scope_creep ( talk) 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. As mentioned last week by Ad Orientem, this could have been closed as a no consensus last week. Proceeding with that closure; no prejudice against an early renomination – although I would suggest a discussion towards redirecting the article to the suggested pages before taking this up at Afd again. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This feels like a personal essay and doesn't seem to be getting any better anytime soon. At this point, I think we should just blow it up and start over. I suggest that we delete or possibly stubbify this version, but allow editors to create a new article on this topic. TheDracologist ( talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MRD 20 14 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No apparent notability, fails WP:GNG, formerly held a few unreliable, non-BLP sources, which have since been removed. Article feels like an advertisment and should be 'deleted. Lordtobi ( ✉) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nearly 10 months removed, I think it can be determined that this attack is a WP:NOTNEWS event. WP:ROUTINE coverage was sustained for about 3 days (mostly to mention ISIL's claim of responsibility) but no WP:LASTING impact has been established. Yes, this was covered by the media but according to WP:GEOSCOPE there needs to be a long-term affect on the area. This was tragic but please stick to policy. A redirect to a relevant list is also another option. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 07:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even haven't contested in any series other than karting. Which mean he is can't be considered as professional now. Corvus tristis ( talk) 04:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 07:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP1E - she does not appear to be notable as an academic, and Yelpgate or whatever it's called isn't nearly significant enough to make her notable now. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
— 96.233.109.66 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was convert to disambiguation page. So Why 07:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Too short to be useful as a standalone article, and completely unreferenced. I'm not even entirely sure that it exists because it doesn't have an ISO 15924 code, although it is mentioned here and there online. Unless better references are found, it should be at most mentioned in the Kokborok article. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)