![]() |
\
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Film festival that appears to have existed for only three or four years (it no longer appears on the website of its sponsoring organization). Sources in the article are limited to the sponsoring organization and local press coverage. Internet searching provided nothing more than additional local coverage and passing mentions. The festival is non-notable and does not satisfy either the general notability guidelines or WP:NORG. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Flanaess. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This topic fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing as "keep", as there are no arguments in favor of pure deletion. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Found one source, subject does not have any notability for himself. Fails WP:BIO. Here is the source: http://hudsonriverzeitgeist.com/home/2016/7/3/a-trip-to-the-forgotten-birthplace-of-american-historys-richest-man Rogermx ( talk) 20:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A);. In this case significant coverage has been found on A. Why do people find him notable? Perhaps due to giving rise to the Rockefeller line - however that is true of numerous medieval nobles. e.g. Ansegisel, Anna of Brunswick-Grubenhagen-Einbeck, Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox, Bertrand III of Baux, or Louise-Jeanne Tiercelin de La Colleterie. As significant coverage exists of him (much more so than many nobles which have an entry) - he meets the criteria for inclusion. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Rockefeller family as per above. There are issues with the notability of the subject. For notability multiple uses of the same source counts as one and passing mention (not "significantly in depth") does not count. The article states as fact that the subject was born in Albany, New York but the references give multiple possible locations as the birth place is not actually known. "Notability (people)" states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.". And having a son that became famous does not match any of those. That slippery slope would mean all Rockefeller's and Avery's would get an article. All we would need to do is list the same sources 3 or 4 times, a genealogical source (for birthdays) and point out the relationship to the famous person. Otr500 ( talk) 09:43, 23 June 2017 (*UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with zero !votes. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. all this confirms is the high commission exists. and embassies are not inherently notable. also nominating:
The result was redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace). There appears to be a fairly strong consensus against keeping the article at this time. What to do with it is not as clear. However, a preponderance favors redirection which I think works. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which received a license from the CRTC to launch literally yesterday, but has not yet actually commenced broadcasting. WP:NMEDIA, however, does not permit advance articles about stations that still only exist on paper -- it requires that the station is actually on the air before it qualifies for an article (per the criterion about "established broadcast history".) In the meantime, the license can certainly be discussed in Media in Vancouver and the article on its parent company -- but there actually has to be a signal getting transmitted before it becomes eligible for its own standalone article. Bearcat ( talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage and both references are dead links. SL93 ( talk) 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Having been relisted and with the sole !vote being for deletion I'm going to treat this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
While this producer has worked with significant acts, he fails WP:BIO with only passing mentions of him in articles that are about folks he's worked with. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG per only
WP:ROUTINE sources. Still fails
WP:NHOCKEY (and fairly certain it failed NHOCKEY in 2011 when it was recreated).
Yosemiter (
talk)
23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Nom after failed PROD. Page was created as a spinoff of a now-deleted core page that was just an arbitrary collection of poorly referenced genealogical trivia regarding the British royal family.
This page begins with a false claim that the British royalty are somehow special in their ability to trace to antiquity (sic - the line given traces to medieval times, not antiquity, and millions of people can do this), then proceeds to show an arbitrary set of descents that have something to do with Anglo-Saxons (or not) and the current Queen (or not). It shows Elizabeth's descent from Alfred the Great through the pre-Conquest kings of England, but also another arbitrarily-chosen line through the counts of Flanders (ignoring thousands of other possible lines from Alfred that could be shown). It traces, for unknown reasons, the descent of the Scottish kings from the English royalty, that of Diana Spencer from a Elector of Brunswick, and that of an arbitrary medieval German prince, Philip of Swabia, from Alfred the Great.
The placement of (Anglo-)Saxon and Scot descents on a single page is a non-natural one. While one could argue that Elizabeth's descent from Alfred is central to her royal legitimacy, we already show this descent on Family tree of English and British monarchs and need not repeat it here also, nor would a merge improve that other page. As to the Scots, there is no legitimate rationale for tracing their descent from the founder of the English state, rather than from their own founder Kenneth MacAlpin (or even Fergus Mor). If we really are to have a royal genealogy page focusing on Elizabeth's claim to Scotland, it needs to focus on Scotland, and the best way to get there would be to TNT this one and start from scratch.
The page fails NOT:GENEALOGY, and lacks any kind of focus that would illuminate a specific topic. It has been flagged for a complete lack of sources for 5 years, with no attempts made to improve it. However curious one might find these descents to be, the current article's purpose is unclear and not well thought out, and because of the way it lumps together several independent genealogical phenomena, it can't really be improved because it isn't about any coherent topic. Agricolae ( talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete Speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://growthluxuryhomes.com/our-team/. Non-Admin closure.
Heavy WP:PROMO tones with his name printed in bold 4 separate times on the page (in addition to issues with the style and tone of the article and the manner in which external links are used). I also wasn't impressed with the reliability of secondary sources used and needed to meet WP:BLP standards. Comatmebro ( talk) 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Outer Plane. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Inner Plane. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability, TTN ( talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedily deleted as a copyvio. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable localized student protest fails event notability guidlines WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE, etc. Heavy reliance on primary sources violates WP:NOR. GretLomborg ( talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This page does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. Furthermore, it is an orphan and seems to be an advertisement. Finally, the website's domain name cannot be reached. Snood1205 ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This seems notable and as the event took place well before wikipedia was founded, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really seem to apply as this article was written in 2011, 18 years after the event occurred which really doesn't seem newspapery to me. Furthermore, due to the three years of media coverage following the event, I'd say that it seems to be relatively notable. Snood1205 ( talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is an essay, and thus falls under WP:NOTESSAY. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I can find no reliable evidence that this object even exists. There are a handful of social media entries and youTube videos, but that's about it. Even those could well be copied from list of largest cosmic structures which contains this object with no citation. Zero research published on such an object. I don't even know what the EH9 catalogue would be. Lithopsian ( talk) 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a non-notable neologism. There appears to have been brief coverage (click-baity, not entirely serious, low quality journalism) of this concept but it is insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in the few sources that mention the term. Deli nk ( talk) 18:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Binksternet (
talk)
18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The entire list is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The entire article is in violation of Wikipedia policy seen at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says that Wikipedia cannot be a programming guide for broadcasters. Binksternet ( talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problem with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 17:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Six years ago, a previous deletion discussion ended in "delete." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Network Ten. So that article is obviously a recreation of deleted material. Binksternet ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Redirects pointing to these deleted articles would also have to be deleted. Binksternet ( talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A similar deletion discussion is underway regarding TV programming templates. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 22#Template:Australian television channel programming templates. Binksternet ( talk) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. This is based entirely on primary sources, such as his own personal website and the website of the record label he owns, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all -- even the one thing that looks like a reliable source, Modern Drummer, actually turns out to be a piece he wrote about himself. All of which means that none of the sources present here are independent or notability-conferring ones. This is also a followup recreation after an earlier version, identical but for the addition of the self-written Modern Drummer source, was prodded for exactly the same reasons. So, unfortunately, it's AFD this time and maybe a dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat ( talk) 16:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
no notable software with only trivial references DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Lorne Greene. Not a case of G11 since that does require the text to be promotional not the intent but that does not change the fact that notability was not established. Turning it back into the pre-article redirect seems uncontroversial though. So Why 10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage of this band to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Was a redirect to Lorne Greene (one of his nicknames). Onel5969 TT me 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Is a redirect to Lorne Greene's page for his nickname, more relevant than an established musical group who merely want to have a Wikipedia page? Wouldn't a "non-linked" mention of Lorne's nickname be sufficient? Voice of Doom is a legitimate act with multiple website mentions and reviews. They're also a licensed brand available on iTunes.
-- John Steinheimer ( talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)I must say, I'm utterly confused by a user who thinks someone's nickname warrants an entire Wikipedia page when it can be noted on the person's page itself. The user claims the artist's references are unimpressive while most of the musical groups I research have supplied less. Also, the claim that the artist's history section is fairly substantially similar to its record label is incorrect. I did reference the record label's information but has substantially been rewritten. The band's history is in fact, it's history, so it will have similarities. I admit I'm a newbie to creating Wikipedia pages but a debate over whether a person's nickname should overrule an established recording artist's Wiki page is ridiculous.-- John Steinheimer ( talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am also the author of that bio on the Pyrrhic Victory Recordings website, if that helps. I'm sure I can reword it further. Thanks for the heads up.-- John Steinheimer ( talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JTtheOG ( talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, does this need an introduction? Winged Blades Godric 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a notable manga; coverage is lacking in either Japanese or English. An English search resulted mostly in scanlation sites or manga profiles, while the Japanese search resulted mainly in sites selling the manga or manga profiles as well. Does not appear to be licensed either. No prejudice against merging or redirecting to a list of manga published by Kadokawa, if such a list article exists. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The article already has a page on japanese wikipedia. See the link [5], so i just make a page for english users because if it was against wikipedia's policy than it shouldn't be in japanese wikipedia also. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 15:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is going to delete the article, Than i humbly request him to explain me that why did this page was allowed to be created in japanese but not english. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The manga is available on Kadokawa Shoten's official site. Check link [6]. Translate this page using Google Translate and you can see the description about Author and Publisher. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But, The Google Play Books also identify that "許嫁協定" is published by Kadokawa. Check link [7]. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you suggest me some manga reviewing website that are valid on Wikipedia? -- Phoenix God ( talk) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Can someone look up reception for this series? Did it even chart on Oricon? I'm not seeing any coverage in ANN either. I struck my previous statement concerning JA Wikipedia. Looks like the article was so new it wasn't linked yet. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This series is a sex comedy, probably that's why Oricon and ANN don't have any coverage about this. Phoenix God ( talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to request a fluent user of Japanese on wikipedia to search for reference for this series, That's why please wait some more. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 06:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
According to this fandom post Oricon did rank the Vol (8) of this manga series last year. Please check link [8] -- Phoenix God ( talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The ANN also identify that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (8) of this series 49th in August, 2016. Check link [9]. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The ANN shows that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (7) of this series 45th in February, 2016. Check link [10]. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It is true that ANN doesn't have an entry for manga but according to the links above Oricon did ranked the manga. Does Oricon rankings are inappropriate on wikipedia? -- Phoenix God ( talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:ARTIST notability. The article is chock full of unsourced claims. A search does not reveal any available sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - Mr X 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
BLP article that has been prodded twice, with no sources. scope_creep ( talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Political candidate, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:1E, got some coverage (mainly tabloids) because she received sexually explicit messages while running as a political candidate. Boleyn ( talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
non-notable local voluntary organisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
no reference cited. Saqib ( talk) 09:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus.
When it comes to notability, there is no clear consensus whether she actually meets GNG or not with multiple editors arguing both sides convincingly. The reason I decided to close this discussion rather than to relist it was that the majority of the discussion was instead about questions that this AFD cannot and should not decide but should be discussed first in a broader fashion with input from the whole community.
I am, of course, speaking of the question of paid COI editing. A number of editors have argued that this alone, no matter the merits of the article, is sufficient to delete the article. Which it isn't, at least how the policy is currently worded. While WP:PAID clearly mentions that paid contributions without prior disclosure are against the Foundation's ToU, there is nothing in this or any other applicable policy that supports the fruit of the poisonous tree arguments made in this AFD. Currently, as much as many people might hate it, there is no policy-based reason to delete an article just because it was created in violation of WP:PAID, especially when the same article was later cleaned up by other editors and - despite it's promotional origin - no longer violates any policies (in its current state); WP:NOTPROMO in particular does not actually say "delete such articles", it just says that all articles have to follow the policies and WP:COI "discourages" such editing without explicitly forbidding it.
As WP:PAID#Changing this policy mentions, that policy can be changed and judging from this discussion, there might be consensus to do so. However, this is not the correct venue to do so. If and when such a discussion took place, the article's fate can be re-assessed based on the outcome of this discussion.
Regards So Why 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Some of the sources cited aren't independent, some don't even mention the subject. Among the acceptable sources, I have found just one word "stylistically" that is about the subject. I've looked for better sources, and failed to find any. Maproom ( talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A subdued version of my warrior self, empathizing with people instead of battling with them, would we? Mduvekot ( talk) 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
a neutrally-phrased advertisementmight better be described as "an objective article" -- it isn't an advertisement at all. Inaccuracies can be cleared up by normal editing, and indeed would have been by now except for this AfD, as I was unwilling to be accrued of whitewashing by following up on my challenges while this AfD is in progress. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete or merge to List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Doesn't merit to have separate article. Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Already done by someone else Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable. Doesn't merit to have article. just specifications of product Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
unremarkable film. Zero news hits. Legacypac ( talk) 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails notability. On googling found 2 pages of his own accounts on various social media Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I was tempted to speedy this vanity page, but it's conceivably notable, so it's here instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No context, no sources, no inclusion criteria Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This AfD is created in relation to the AfD that I have raised earlier, for more information please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Teo. In the earlier AfD, the page Damien Teo was deleted as the notability of the individual in question failed WP:GNG. I have also nominated other individuals, who are also non-notable child actors in Singapore, in the AfD and they have all been deleted as well. However, after the closing of the AfD, I realised that I have accidentally missed out another related individual, Regene Lim, who is another non-notable child actor in Singapore whose article should be deleted as well as she also failed WP:GNG. Therefore, I am relisting this AfD again, in relation to the earlier AfD to facilitate the deletion of the page Regene Lim on Wikipedia.
The reasoning and justification for this AfD is duplicated from the earlier AfD as it is the same, as follows:
A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actors' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability. DerricktanJCW ( talk) 04:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No sources; a bunch of WP:FRINGE content on the page. A PROD was declined in 2009 on the page. I only find coverage in biographical listings or in sources that appear to be copied from Wikipedia. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Unanimous agreement to delete, so closing this even though it was just relisted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Self created article referenced only to IMDB; list of credits there shows only minor roles, nothing to meet WP:NACTOR and nothing in article to suggest meeting WP:GNG Melcous ( talk) 23:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. So Why 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a useful list. This is serving only to replicate the contents of Category:Canadian women government ministers -- but the standard needed for a list and a category to coexist is that the list is doing something different: extended content about the overall concept, providing a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories instead of directly containing all of its potential entries, being more completist than a category can be since a category can't hold entries that don't have articles to file, and on and so forth. But this list isn't doing any of those things: it's just listing the exact same entries (and not even all of them), which means it isn't serving any purpose that the category isn't already fulfilling. Bearcat ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
no indication the prize for beginning journalists is sufficiently notable to have this list. I'm not even sure that any of it is suitable for merging in to thearticleo n the prize. I point out there is no article on the prize in the svWP. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable musician. - The Magnificentist 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. Two relists only brought one further real comment (plus one WP:PERX) which did not mention a policy-based reason for deletion (but instead admitted that the topic might actually be notable). So Why 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a useful list. Canada literally has thousands upon thousands of housing cooperatives, since virtually every city of even moderate size will have a few dozen, and even smaller towns will often have a handful too -- but as things stand right now, just six of them actually have their own standalone articles, all six of them are already filed in Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada, and this list just replicates those same six rather than aiming for anything more comprehensive. While it's true that lists aren't automatically deemed redundant with categories per WP:CLN, it's also true that every category doesn't automatically need to be paired with its own matching list of the same contents -- to warrant maintaining both, the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do (such as being more completist, or actually containing written content about the notability of the concept, or being a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories). But if all the list is going to do is replicate the category contents with no added context for why the list is doing something different than the category is, then we don't need the list. Bearcat ( talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Weak Delete - As per Shawn in Montreal. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. With no further discussion of the sources provided, I'm closing this as no consensus. Before renominating, consider whether it can be merged to the company's article instead. So Why 12:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet the notability guidelines for web content(this being a web-based program). The only source offered is the website of the company that created it. I could find no sources offering in-depth coverage of this software. It was tagged with an A7 deletion request(importance) in September but it was removed. The proposed CSD was contested with the explanation "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this page is intended to be an information source about a product (Maple T.A.). This was the first bit of information created for this page and more content is to be created in the future." which is a promotional purpose- also suggesting that the page creator has a COI. 331dot ( talk) 14:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. So Why 19:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tag removed multiple times from page creator and IP. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Meatsgains ( talk) please am really new with all this technicalities.. but I will be glad if you could help me review the pages rather than nominating them for delation.. thank you ref Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .
The result was merge to Alibaba. So Why 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
All information is regarding Alibaba group. Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Support- this could be summed up with a single SHORT paragraph on the Alibaba main article El cid, el campeador ( talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Article has only recipe. Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This concept does not appear to be notable. The term is not used in the one source cited, and a search does not suggest that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No substantial progress since the last relist but I'm comfortable with interpreting two delete arguments, a good nomination, and no counter-arguments as a consensus to delete. A Train talk 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable voice actress. JA Wikipedia shows a credits dump. ANN has no notable articles to cover her career, just cast announcements. No major roles. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
List of programs broadcast by an individual independent television station. While lists of this type are permitted for national networks, I can't find any other evidence in Category:Lists of television series by network of them existing for standalone stations as well. And furthermore, while the station is nominally independent of Canada's national networks, in actual practice it doesn't buy standalone broadcast rights to any programming that's exclusive to it, but just sublicenses a crossnetwork mix of programs from CTV and Global — so it's still basically a dual affiliate of both networks nonetheless, with its only real point of "independence" being that it's not faithful to either network's standard schedule. The end result being that apart from its own local newscast (which doesn't have its own standalone article separate from the "news" section of the station article) and maybe a few syndication strips, pretty much everything listed here is already going to be in either List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV Two or List of programs broadcast by Global anyway. All of which means there's just no need for this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Wholly unsourced article, apparently translated from no:Pakistansk Forening Norge, which is also unsourced. The organisation does exist -- it has a Facebook page -- but I haven't found any independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage therein. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Sources in the article are all either primary, press releases, or trivial coverage. Sources on-line are a bit better, but I could find nothing more than passing references or more PR things. Hobit ( talk) 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has supposedly acted in 2 movies - Aanandam in which she is not even billed and Oru Mexican Aparatha in which she had a very minor role. All the references are about the movies, and her acting career section is therefore just information about the movies - the directors, actors, producers etc. Then there is also a section of her personal life which is unreferenced. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. G4 — Spaceman Spiff 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
An unremarkable businessman; significant RS coverage not found. Article previously deleted via PROD; a related article Buxani was deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxani. Created by Special:Contributions/Sepialine with no other contributions outside this topic. Suggest salting due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 09:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A political party estabilished 4 years ago. No sources for it (its members) winning any elections, participating in elections, having notable members, nothing except a source that it was established (rotted, archive: [11] - reads like a short press release). I am all for countering systemic bias etc., but political parties are not notable just by existing, and this one's total lack of coverage in the last 4 years suggests it is not yet (ever?) encyclopedic. Through a search through Pakistani sources could help? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Largely unsourced (the sources generally aren't about David Budworth) and apparently written by a family genealogist of the Budworths. Though I'm sure this is of great interest to David Budworth's relatives, it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG (and WP:V). Sionk ( talk) 05:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete.
First things first: Despite commonly being used as an argument,
WP:GNG does not have to be met if a
WP:SNG is met.
WP:N is quite clear on that as pointed out by TheDragonFire when it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; [...]
" (emphasis added). In this case, there is no consensus that she has won "a well-known and significant industry award", so PORNBIO was not met anyway, rendering the discussion moot.
However, what those arguing for keep based on WP:PORNBIO seem to have overlooked is that Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which PORNBIO is a part, clearly states that those standards are mere indicators of notability, helping users to determine how an article should be handled. The actual criteria the article has to meet are mentioned in WP:BASIC which mostly mirrors GNG. Failing GNG will usually mean failing BASIC however unlike GNG BASIC explicitly allows combining multiple sources with non-substantial non-trivial coverage to establish notability, something those arguing along the lines of GNG should remember.
In this case, there were a number of sources mentioned but dismissed as merely trivial mentions at best, something that was not really disputed by those providing them (whether another user is "anti-porn" or not does not change the quality of the sources provided). Without any demonstration of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject
" (
WP:BASIC), deletion was the only correct outcome.
Regards So Why 16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. WP:PORNBIO superseeds WP:GNG in this case. Regardless of the content of the article (which I have deliberately not looked at), arguments made at User talk:SophisticatedSwampert against their NAC are ridiculous. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. This isn't the most obvious consensus I've seen but by and large the delete !votes appear to be based on guidelines and policy. That does not appear to be the case for the keep's, of which 2/3 are "it exists" !votes. Only one Keep makes an argument for notability and w/o citing any evidence. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Promotional tone has not been eliminated. Compared with the previous AfD, the software might still be notable enough for this page but from the looks of it would be very difficult to rewrite it to remove the promotional tone that has permeated this article all around. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. A Train talk 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Scripps College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE James ( talk/ contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This social network is a few days old. Seems a little soon for a page Legacypac ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable organisation. Small retreat. Gets passing mentions in Buddhist publications. But nothing that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.
There is still not enough coverage about this organisation in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
\
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Film festival that appears to have existed for only three or four years (it no longer appears on the website of its sponsoring organization). Sources in the article are limited to the sponsoring organization and local press coverage. Internet searching provided nothing more than additional local coverage and passing mentions. The festival is non-notable and does not satisfy either the general notability guidelines or WP:NORG. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Flanaess. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This topic fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing as "keep", as there are no arguments in favor of pure deletion. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Found one source, subject does not have any notability for himself. Fails WP:BIO. Here is the source: http://hudsonriverzeitgeist.com/home/2016/7/3/a-trip-to-the-forgotten-birthplace-of-american-historys-richest-man Rogermx ( talk) 20:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A);. In this case significant coverage has been found on A. Why do people find him notable? Perhaps due to giving rise to the Rockefeller line - however that is true of numerous medieval nobles. e.g. Ansegisel, Anna of Brunswick-Grubenhagen-Einbeck, Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox, Bertrand III of Baux, or Louise-Jeanne Tiercelin de La Colleterie. As significant coverage exists of him (much more so than many nobles which have an entry) - he meets the criteria for inclusion. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Rockefeller family as per above. There are issues with the notability of the subject. For notability multiple uses of the same source counts as one and passing mention (not "significantly in depth") does not count. The article states as fact that the subject was born in Albany, New York but the references give multiple possible locations as the birth place is not actually known. "Notability (people)" states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.". And having a son that became famous does not match any of those. That slippery slope would mean all Rockefeller's and Avery's would get an article. All we would need to do is list the same sources 3 or 4 times, a genealogical source (for birthdays) and point out the relationship to the famous person. Otr500 ( talk) 09:43, 23 June 2017 (*UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with zero !votes. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. all this confirms is the high commission exists. and embassies are not inherently notable. also nominating:
The result was redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace). There appears to be a fairly strong consensus against keeping the article at this time. What to do with it is not as clear. However, a preponderance favors redirection which I think works. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which received a license from the CRTC to launch literally yesterday, but has not yet actually commenced broadcasting. WP:NMEDIA, however, does not permit advance articles about stations that still only exist on paper -- it requires that the station is actually on the air before it qualifies for an article (per the criterion about "established broadcast history".) In the meantime, the license can certainly be discussed in Media in Vancouver and the article on its parent company -- but there actually has to be a signal getting transmitted before it becomes eligible for its own standalone article. Bearcat ( talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage and both references are dead links. SL93 ( talk) 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Having been relisted and with the sole !vote being for deletion I'm going to treat this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
While this producer has worked with significant acts, he fails WP:BIO with only passing mentions of him in articles that are about folks he's worked with. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG per only
WP:ROUTINE sources. Still fails
WP:NHOCKEY (and fairly certain it failed NHOCKEY in 2011 when it was recreated).
Yosemiter (
talk)
23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Nom after failed PROD. Page was created as a spinoff of a now-deleted core page that was just an arbitrary collection of poorly referenced genealogical trivia regarding the British royal family.
This page begins with a false claim that the British royalty are somehow special in their ability to trace to antiquity (sic - the line given traces to medieval times, not antiquity, and millions of people can do this), then proceeds to show an arbitrary set of descents that have something to do with Anglo-Saxons (or not) and the current Queen (or not). It shows Elizabeth's descent from Alfred the Great through the pre-Conquest kings of England, but also another arbitrarily-chosen line through the counts of Flanders (ignoring thousands of other possible lines from Alfred that could be shown). It traces, for unknown reasons, the descent of the Scottish kings from the English royalty, that of Diana Spencer from a Elector of Brunswick, and that of an arbitrary medieval German prince, Philip of Swabia, from Alfred the Great.
The placement of (Anglo-)Saxon and Scot descents on a single page is a non-natural one. While one could argue that Elizabeth's descent from Alfred is central to her royal legitimacy, we already show this descent on Family tree of English and British monarchs and need not repeat it here also, nor would a merge improve that other page. As to the Scots, there is no legitimate rationale for tracing their descent from the founder of the English state, rather than from their own founder Kenneth MacAlpin (or even Fergus Mor). If we really are to have a royal genealogy page focusing on Elizabeth's claim to Scotland, it needs to focus on Scotland, and the best way to get there would be to TNT this one and start from scratch.
The page fails NOT:GENEALOGY, and lacks any kind of focus that would illuminate a specific topic. It has been flagged for a complete lack of sources for 5 years, with no attempts made to improve it. However curious one might find these descents to be, the current article's purpose is unclear and not well thought out, and because of the way it lumps together several independent genealogical phenomena, it can't really be improved because it isn't about any coherent topic. Agricolae ( talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete Speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://growthluxuryhomes.com/our-team/. Non-Admin closure.
Heavy WP:PROMO tones with his name printed in bold 4 separate times on the page (in addition to issues with the style and tone of the article and the manner in which external links are used). I also wasn't impressed with the reliability of secondary sources used and needed to meet WP:BLP standards. Comatmebro ( talk) 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Outer Plane. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Inner Plane. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability, TTN ( talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedily deleted as a copyvio. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable localized student protest fails event notability guidlines WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE, etc. Heavy reliance on primary sources violates WP:NOR. GretLomborg ( talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This page does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. Furthermore, it is an orphan and seems to be an advertisement. Finally, the website's domain name cannot be reached. Snood1205 ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This seems notable and as the event took place well before wikipedia was founded, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really seem to apply as this article was written in 2011, 18 years after the event occurred which really doesn't seem newspapery to me. Furthermore, due to the three years of media coverage following the event, I'd say that it seems to be relatively notable. Snood1205 ( talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is an essay, and thus falls under WP:NOTESSAY. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I can find no reliable evidence that this object even exists. There are a handful of social media entries and youTube videos, but that's about it. Even those could well be copied from list of largest cosmic structures which contains this object with no citation. Zero research published on such an object. I don't even know what the EH9 catalogue would be. Lithopsian ( talk) 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a non-notable neologism. There appears to have been brief coverage (click-baity, not entirely serious, low quality journalism) of this concept but it is insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in the few sources that mention the term. Deli nk ( talk) 18:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Binksternet (
talk)
18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The entire list is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The entire article is in violation of Wikipedia policy seen at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says that Wikipedia cannot be a programming guide for broadcasters. Binksternet ( talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problem with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet ( talk) 17:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Six years ago, a previous deletion discussion ended in "delete." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Network Ten. So that article is obviously a recreation of deleted material. Binksternet ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Redirects pointing to these deleted articles would also have to be deleted. Binksternet ( talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A similar deletion discussion is underway regarding TV programming templates. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 22#Template:Australian television channel programming templates. Binksternet ( talk) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. This is based entirely on primary sources, such as his own personal website and the website of the record label he owns, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all -- even the one thing that looks like a reliable source, Modern Drummer, actually turns out to be a piece he wrote about himself. All of which means that none of the sources present here are independent or notability-conferring ones. This is also a followup recreation after an earlier version, identical but for the addition of the self-written Modern Drummer source, was prodded for exactly the same reasons. So, unfortunately, it's AFD this time and maybe a dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat ( talk) 16:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
no notable software with only trivial references DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Lorne Greene. Not a case of G11 since that does require the text to be promotional not the intent but that does not change the fact that notability was not established. Turning it back into the pre-article redirect seems uncontroversial though. So Why 10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage of this band to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Was a redirect to Lorne Greene (one of his nicknames). Onel5969 TT me 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Is a redirect to Lorne Greene's page for his nickname, more relevant than an established musical group who merely want to have a Wikipedia page? Wouldn't a "non-linked" mention of Lorne's nickname be sufficient? Voice of Doom is a legitimate act with multiple website mentions and reviews. They're also a licensed brand available on iTunes.
-- John Steinheimer ( talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)I must say, I'm utterly confused by a user who thinks someone's nickname warrants an entire Wikipedia page when it can be noted on the person's page itself. The user claims the artist's references are unimpressive while most of the musical groups I research have supplied less. Also, the claim that the artist's history section is fairly substantially similar to its record label is incorrect. I did reference the record label's information but has substantially been rewritten. The band's history is in fact, it's history, so it will have similarities. I admit I'm a newbie to creating Wikipedia pages but a debate over whether a person's nickname should overrule an established recording artist's Wiki page is ridiculous.-- John Steinheimer ( talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am also the author of that bio on the Pyrrhic Victory Recordings website, if that helps. I'm sure I can reword it further. Thanks for the heads up.-- John Steinheimer ( talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JTtheOG ( talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, does this need an introduction? Winged Blades Godric 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a notable manga; coverage is lacking in either Japanese or English. An English search resulted mostly in scanlation sites or manga profiles, while the Japanese search resulted mainly in sites selling the manga or manga profiles as well. Does not appear to be licensed either. No prejudice against merging or redirecting to a list of manga published by Kadokawa, if such a list article exists. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The article already has a page on japanese wikipedia. See the link [5], so i just make a page for english users because if it was against wikipedia's policy than it shouldn't be in japanese wikipedia also. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 15:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is going to delete the article, Than i humbly request him to explain me that why did this page was allowed to be created in japanese but not english. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The manga is available on Kadokawa Shoten's official site. Check link [6]. Translate this page using Google Translate and you can see the description about Author and Publisher. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But, The Google Play Books also identify that "許嫁協定" is published by Kadokawa. Check link [7]. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you suggest me some manga reviewing website that are valid on Wikipedia? -- Phoenix God ( talk) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Can someone look up reception for this series? Did it even chart on Oricon? I'm not seeing any coverage in ANN either. I struck my previous statement concerning JA Wikipedia. Looks like the article was so new it wasn't linked yet. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This series is a sex comedy, probably that's why Oricon and ANN don't have any coverage about this. Phoenix God ( talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to request a fluent user of Japanese on wikipedia to search for reference for this series, That's why please wait some more. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 06:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
According to this fandom post Oricon did rank the Vol (8) of this manga series last year. Please check link [8] -- Phoenix God ( talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The ANN also identify that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (8) of this series 49th in August, 2016. Check link [9]. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The ANN shows that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (7) of this series 45th in February, 2016. Check link [10]. -- Phoenix God ( talk) 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It is true that ANN doesn't have an entry for manga but according to the links above Oricon did ranked the manga. Does Oricon rankings are inappropriate on wikipedia? -- Phoenix God ( talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:ARTIST notability. The article is chock full of unsourced claims. A search does not reveal any available sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - Mr X 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - The Magnificentist 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
BLP article that has been prodded twice, with no sources. scope_creep ( talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Political candidate, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:1E, got some coverage (mainly tabloids) because she received sexually explicit messages while running as a political candidate. Boleyn ( talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
non-notable local voluntary organisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
no reference cited. Saqib ( talk) 09:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus.
When it comes to notability, there is no clear consensus whether she actually meets GNG or not with multiple editors arguing both sides convincingly. The reason I decided to close this discussion rather than to relist it was that the majority of the discussion was instead about questions that this AFD cannot and should not decide but should be discussed first in a broader fashion with input from the whole community.
I am, of course, speaking of the question of paid COI editing. A number of editors have argued that this alone, no matter the merits of the article, is sufficient to delete the article. Which it isn't, at least how the policy is currently worded. While WP:PAID clearly mentions that paid contributions without prior disclosure are against the Foundation's ToU, there is nothing in this or any other applicable policy that supports the fruit of the poisonous tree arguments made in this AFD. Currently, as much as many people might hate it, there is no policy-based reason to delete an article just because it was created in violation of WP:PAID, especially when the same article was later cleaned up by other editors and - despite it's promotional origin - no longer violates any policies (in its current state); WP:NOTPROMO in particular does not actually say "delete such articles", it just says that all articles have to follow the policies and WP:COI "discourages" such editing without explicitly forbidding it.
As WP:PAID#Changing this policy mentions, that policy can be changed and judging from this discussion, there might be consensus to do so. However, this is not the correct venue to do so. If and when such a discussion took place, the article's fate can be re-assessed based on the outcome of this discussion.
Regards So Why 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Some of the sources cited aren't independent, some don't even mention the subject. Among the acceptable sources, I have found just one word "stylistically" that is about the subject. I've looked for better sources, and failed to find any. Maproom ( talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A subdued version of my warrior self, empathizing with people instead of battling with them, would we? Mduvekot ( talk) 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
a neutrally-phrased advertisementmight better be described as "an objective article" -- it isn't an advertisement at all. Inaccuracies can be cleared up by normal editing, and indeed would have been by now except for this AfD, as I was unwilling to be accrued of whitewashing by following up on my challenges while this AfD is in progress. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete or merge to List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Doesn't merit to have separate article. Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Already done by someone else Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable. Doesn't merit to have article. just specifications of product Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
unremarkable film. Zero news hits. Legacypac ( talk) 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails notability. On googling found 2 pages of his own accounts on various social media Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I was tempted to speedy this vanity page, but it's conceivably notable, so it's here instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No context, no sources, no inclusion criteria Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This AfD is created in relation to the AfD that I have raised earlier, for more information please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Teo. In the earlier AfD, the page Damien Teo was deleted as the notability of the individual in question failed WP:GNG. I have also nominated other individuals, who are also non-notable child actors in Singapore, in the AfD and they have all been deleted as well. However, after the closing of the AfD, I realised that I have accidentally missed out another related individual, Regene Lim, who is another non-notable child actor in Singapore whose article should be deleted as well as she also failed WP:GNG. Therefore, I am relisting this AfD again, in relation to the earlier AfD to facilitate the deletion of the page Regene Lim on Wikipedia.
The reasoning and justification for this AfD is duplicated from the earlier AfD as it is the same, as follows:
A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actors' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability. DerricktanJCW ( talk) 04:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No sources; a bunch of WP:FRINGE content on the page. A PROD was declined in 2009 on the page. I only find coverage in biographical listings or in sources that appear to be copied from Wikipedia. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Unanimous agreement to delete, so closing this even though it was just relisted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Self created article referenced only to IMDB; list of credits there shows only minor roles, nothing to meet WP:NACTOR and nothing in article to suggest meeting WP:GNG Melcous ( talk) 23:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. So Why 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a useful list. This is serving only to replicate the contents of Category:Canadian women government ministers -- but the standard needed for a list and a category to coexist is that the list is doing something different: extended content about the overall concept, providing a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories instead of directly containing all of its potential entries, being more completist than a category can be since a category can't hold entries that don't have articles to file, and on and so forth. But this list isn't doing any of those things: it's just listing the exact same entries (and not even all of them), which means it isn't serving any purpose that the category isn't already fulfilling. Bearcat ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
no indication the prize for beginning journalists is sufficiently notable to have this list. I'm not even sure that any of it is suitable for merging in to thearticleo n the prize. I point out there is no article on the prize in the svWP. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable musician. - The Magnificentist 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. Two relists only brought one further real comment (plus one WP:PERX) which did not mention a policy-based reason for deletion (but instead admitted that the topic might actually be notable). So Why 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a useful list. Canada literally has thousands upon thousands of housing cooperatives, since virtually every city of even moderate size will have a few dozen, and even smaller towns will often have a handful too -- but as things stand right now, just six of them actually have their own standalone articles, all six of them are already filed in Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada, and this list just replicates those same six rather than aiming for anything more comprehensive. While it's true that lists aren't automatically deemed redundant with categories per WP:CLN, it's also true that every category doesn't automatically need to be paired with its own matching list of the same contents -- to warrant maintaining both, the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do (such as being more completist, or actually containing written content about the notability of the concept, or being a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories). But if all the list is going to do is replicate the category contents with no added context for why the list is doing something different than the category is, then we don't need the list. Bearcat ( talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Weak Delete - As per Shawn in Montreal. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. With no further discussion of the sources provided, I'm closing this as no consensus. Before renominating, consider whether it can be merged to the company's article instead. So Why 12:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet the notability guidelines for web content(this being a web-based program). The only source offered is the website of the company that created it. I could find no sources offering in-depth coverage of this software. It was tagged with an A7 deletion request(importance) in September but it was removed. The proposed CSD was contested with the explanation "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this page is intended to be an information source about a product (Maple T.A.). This was the first bit of information created for this page and more content is to be created in the future." which is a promotional purpose- also suggesting that the page creator has a COI. 331dot ( talk) 14:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. So Why 19:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tag removed multiple times from page creator and IP. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Meatsgains ( talk) please am really new with all this technicalities.. but I will be glad if you could help me review the pages rather than nominating them for delation.. thank you ref Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .
The result was merge to Alibaba. So Why 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
All information is regarding Alibaba group. Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Support- this could be summed up with a single SHORT paragraph on the Alibaba main article El cid, el campeador ( talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Article has only recipe. Sulaimandaud ( talk) 06:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This concept does not appear to be notable. The term is not used in the one source cited, and a search does not suggest that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No substantial progress since the last relist but I'm comfortable with interpreting two delete arguments, a good nomination, and no counter-arguments as a consensus to delete. A Train talk 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable voice actress. JA Wikipedia shows a credits dump. ANN has no notable articles to cover her career, just cast announcements. No major roles. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
List of programs broadcast by an individual independent television station. While lists of this type are permitted for national networks, I can't find any other evidence in Category:Lists of television series by network of them existing for standalone stations as well. And furthermore, while the station is nominally independent of Canada's national networks, in actual practice it doesn't buy standalone broadcast rights to any programming that's exclusive to it, but just sublicenses a crossnetwork mix of programs from CTV and Global — so it's still basically a dual affiliate of both networks nonetheless, with its only real point of "independence" being that it's not faithful to either network's standard schedule. The end result being that apart from its own local newscast (which doesn't have its own standalone article separate from the "news" section of the station article) and maybe a few syndication strips, pretty much everything listed here is already going to be in either List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV Two or List of programs broadcast by Global anyway. All of which means there's just no need for this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Wholly unsourced article, apparently translated from no:Pakistansk Forening Norge, which is also unsourced. The organisation does exist -- it has a Facebook page -- but I haven't found any independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage therein. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Sources in the article are all either primary, press releases, or trivial coverage. Sources on-line are a bit better, but I could find nothing more than passing references or more PR things. Hobit ( talk) 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has supposedly acted in 2 movies - Aanandam in which she is not even billed and Oru Mexican Aparatha in which she had a very minor role. All the references are about the movies, and her acting career section is therefore just information about the movies - the directors, actors, producers etc. Then there is also a section of her personal life which is unreferenced. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. G4 — Spaceman Spiff 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
An unremarkable businessman; significant RS coverage not found. Article previously deleted via PROD; a related article Buxani was deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxani. Created by Special:Contributions/Sepialine with no other contributions outside this topic. Suggest salting due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 09:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A political party estabilished 4 years ago. No sources for it (its members) winning any elections, participating in elections, having notable members, nothing except a source that it was established (rotted, archive: [11] - reads like a short press release). I am all for countering systemic bias etc., but political parties are not notable just by existing, and this one's total lack of coverage in the last 4 years suggests it is not yet (ever?) encyclopedic. Through a search through Pakistani sources could help? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Largely unsourced (the sources generally aren't about David Budworth) and apparently written by a family genealogist of the Budworths. Though I'm sure this is of great interest to David Budworth's relatives, it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG (and WP:V). Sionk ( talk) 05:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete.
First things first: Despite commonly being used as an argument,
WP:GNG does not have to be met if a
WP:SNG is met.
WP:N is quite clear on that as pointed out by TheDragonFire when it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; [...]
" (emphasis added). In this case, there is no consensus that she has won "a well-known and significant industry award", so PORNBIO was not met anyway, rendering the discussion moot.
However, what those arguing for keep based on WP:PORNBIO seem to have overlooked is that Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which PORNBIO is a part, clearly states that those standards are mere indicators of notability, helping users to determine how an article should be handled. The actual criteria the article has to meet are mentioned in WP:BASIC which mostly mirrors GNG. Failing GNG will usually mean failing BASIC however unlike GNG BASIC explicitly allows combining multiple sources with non-substantial non-trivial coverage to establish notability, something those arguing along the lines of GNG should remember.
In this case, there were a number of sources mentioned but dismissed as merely trivial mentions at best, something that was not really disputed by those providing them (whether another user is "anti-porn" or not does not change the quality of the sources provided). Without any demonstration of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject
" (
WP:BASIC), deletion was the only correct outcome.
Regards So Why 16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. WP:PORNBIO superseeds WP:GNG in this case. Regardless of the content of the article (which I have deliberately not looked at), arguments made at User talk:SophisticatedSwampert against their NAC are ridiculous. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. This isn't the most obvious consensus I've seen but by and large the delete !votes appear to be based on guidelines and policy. That does not appear to be the case for the keep's, of which 2/3 are "it exists" !votes. Only one Keep makes an argument for notability and w/o citing any evidence. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Promotional tone has not been eliminated. Compared with the previous AfD, the software might still be notable enough for this page but from the looks of it would be very difficult to rewrite it to remove the promotional tone that has permeated this article all around. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. A Train talk 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Scripps College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE James ( talk/ contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This social network is a few days old. Seems a little soon for a page Legacypac ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Non notable organisation. Small retreat. Gets passing mentions in Buddhist publications. But nothing that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.
There is still not enough coverage about this organisation in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)