![]() |
The result was speedy keep. Mis-nomination based on a test edit (non-admin closure) [ Username Needed 11:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this is someone's user page that ended up in the mainspace by accident? I honestly don't know what this page is. Xevus11 ( talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The USL W-League was not a WP:FPL, so this page fails WP:NSEASONS. None of the listed references are enough to meet WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
All the provided sources are in PR/business-churnalism publications. An internet search didn't return anything better. Awards won don't appear to be notable. Does not meet WP:NORG. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No sources found, no indication of notability Mccapra ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD. This seems to be insufficiently notable for an article. The sources are few and poor. Two of them are by the same author and one is primary. At least one is not RS. This is nowhere near meeting our requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources. Looking in Google Books, Newspapers and Scholar it seems that this political usage is not even the most widely used meaning the term has. (It mostly seems to refer to something religious, which I did not look at closely as it is very obviously nothing to do with the subject of this article. I have no idea whether that is notable but if it is then it would seem to have a better claim on this article title than this subject.) There is also something called the "Fish Hook Effect" which turns up in searches but that is something to do with meteorology and is no help here. This subject barely pokes its head out of the RS Google hits. There is just enough to provide verifiability that the theory does exist but it seems to be one academic's personal theory with just a few fans. There is nothing wrong with that (And who knows whether it will become more widely accepted in the future?) but it does not qualify for an article at this time. It already has quite sufficient (possibly rather more than sufficient) coverage in the Horseshoe theory article. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Singer has received little significant coverage in reliable sources in her own right, and her discography is not nearly as impressive as it appears in the article. Wading through several broken links and retail sites, you will find that she has performed as a "featured" singer in a few tracks by other people, and those few songs have been used in repetitive various-artist compilations and remix albums. I can find no music released under her own name, or media notice of her appearances with others, so her independent notability is suspect. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. On second thought, an AfD with nobody but the nominator supporting deletion after 2 weeks isn't going anywhere. Sandstein 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:
This USGS entry tells part of the story (select the "Impact" section for a description of where this event was felt (felt events aren't notable))
Off-wiki activities keeping me preoccupied lately. Please do not close discussion yet. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
What I'm seeing with this AfD are that inexperienced editors are making statements about this situation. I can say that with confidence because the responses to their statements have included questions that have gone unanswered. The opposition to the deletion have not yet made arguments for keeping the article. None of them has experience in the earthquake article space (if I've overlooked or missed your significant contributions for some reason please post links to earthquake articles). My thinking is this: How is one supposed to decide whether an earthquake is notable or not if they've never worked on an earthquake article? This AfD is about the maintenance of a WikiProject's articles.
That scientists have an interest in a particular event and our decision to create an encyclopedia article on it do not always coincide. In other words, scientific interest and encyclopedic notability on WP aren't always the same thing. Or this question could be posed: that there are scientific papers show that the event was worthy of study in their eyes, but how and why does that also mean that it is (by default) notable in ours? This is the question that needs to be answered.
There's way more nuance about writing earthquake articles than most editors realize. That scientists are writing about earthquakes can sometimes bolster an article's potential here on WP, but the event needs to have notable aspect. Damage and/or deaths is one of the simplest ways that editors can determine notability (does the event have lasting impact?). But there are other aspects that can also be looked at in situations (like this one) that lack those obvious factors. So, what are they? That the EQ happened is not enough for an encyclopedia article. We are not an earthquake catalog that lists miscellaneous events. That would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
So that is the question. What are the sources (that Icewhiz posted) saying that makes this a notable event? That this question has not been answered yet is because the involved editors are out of their comfort zone. E.M.Gregory was short with me for this very reason.
To summarize the question once more: It is the content of the sources that we're needing to look at. Said another way: there are many instances of journal articles about earthquakes for which we would not create an encyclopedia article. Dawnseeker2000 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. Out of 28 references here, not a single one represents reliable source coverage about him -- every single footnote is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, a piece of his own bylined writing about other things, a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than him, a WordPress, Blogspot or LiveJournal blog, or a primary source. And even the literary awards he's won are not major ones that constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass -- they're minor ones that can be sourced only to their own self-published websites. But the question of whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it hinges not on verification that the award exists, but on media caring enough about it to report its winners as news. Writers, as always, are not automatically notable just because their own writings and other primary sources provide technical verification that they exist -- the notability test for a writer is not the degree to which he has been the creator of content about other things, but the degree to which he has been the subject of journalism about him created by other people, and not a single source here offers any such thing. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Contributingauthor" and the overwhelming majority of their entire Wikipedia edit history has been to this article itself. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable longevity claim. This got a very short spate of attention, and we learn from the article that she took traditional medicine, she had kids, she liked certain kinds of food, and she died. This is best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A longevity claim with almost no substance. Basically all the sources say she lived and died, and have no material about her life in any way. This is best handled on the Longevity claims page in a list. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Biography of a person whose claim of notability as a moderator and creator of early computer bulletin board forums is not reliably sourced. Two of the four footnotes here definitively fail to mention his name at all, serving only to tangentially verify stray facts about the forums, while a third wants me to pay $51 for the privilege of reading it to verify whether it actually addresses him as a person or not. And the only other source here is a short biographical blurb in the finding aid to an archival collection of printouts of posts to the forum he organized, which means even that collection isn't really about him to any non-trivial degree either. These sources would quite honestly be stronger support for WP:CORP articles about the bulletin boards than they are for a biographical article about him as a person. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm not 100% sure on the fomratting of how to post this comment/vote & so I appreciate your patience. I've been doing work in the ONE archives, which holds the finding aid you reference. The collections there are are about him -- to a substantial degree. In additional to biographical information about Charnow, there are printouts from the BBS which include: stories about his diagnosis, the people he helped as an AIDS activist, and interviews he conducted with doctors and physicians which he made available on the BBS. The BBS was one of the first of its kind to spread awareness about AIDS and seems to be the only one archived with primary source material. If you request the information from the archives, it's readily available. What would be the best protocol here? Surely his work is notable, if sticky to acquire. This seems to be the case with underground early internet movements, and is compounded by the urgency of the AIDS crisis. I have photographs and scans from his work in the archives which I can make available here. The protocol for original research made this murky. Kbbrewster ( talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep here, even the Weak Delete !vote said the article is well sourced. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLP1E. Ms Smith is notable for only one event, is an otherwise low profile individual, and even the event itself isn't that significant. Merge with main Tsunami article if preferred, but it certainly doesn't warrant an individual article about her. FirefoxLSD ( talk) 13:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Weak Delete There isn't any doubt that the account is well sourced, but nevertheless this doesn't seem to be particularly notable, more than a decade after the event. Those sources don't add anything new to the account - they just retell the same event again and again. Even at the time, I recall that it was debated whether she actually saved 100 people, as opposed to giving the warning to a few, resulting in the evacuation. Firefox's claim that she isn't notable at all seems a little outlandish, but equally her notability was very much something of the time. Since then she has fallen into obscurity, and the newer news articles don't add anything. In two of the three sources Houseofchange lists, she is given a cursory mention: not enough to warrant notability. TeddyBiffles ( talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment : Has anyone checked for Thai language sources on the subject? That may be relevant to this AfD. Thsmi002 ( talk) 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Per previous speedy deletion and PROD requests: "Slavic migrations" as a distinct historical period is WP:OR; most of the dates mentioned have nothing to do with any Slavic migrations; the topic is already dealt with far better at Early Slavs and related articles; and the page was created by veteran sockmaster with a rather long history of pushing fringe POVs on early Slavic history and the very dubious-quality History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations as a source, so WP:DENY applies. Constantine ✍ 15:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Several articles mere-mention the subject, and a few quote him, but there doesn't appear to be enough information about Ignasi Puig Claret himself to justify an article–the article as written currently reflects this, as essentially all of the content is about the company the subject founded, SCPF. The only source that appears to provide in-depth coverage of the subject ( [12]) does not appear to be a reliable source. I was not able to find additional sources online in English, Spanish, or Catalan. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
In 2018 the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson convened him as CEO of the agency MiNY. [1] [2]
I was out and did not know that the article had been approved and postulated for deletion on the same day. Puig Claret is one of the most important publicists in Spain, I think the biggest coverage that a publicist can have will be in publications of the advertising industry. Thank you!-- Ciprinido75 ( talk) 03:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ciprinido75 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
References
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Promotional and not notable. Only mentioned as part of a group of female Harley riders in India. — Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete per author request. Hut 8.5 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Really not sure what this is for, and will need far too much work what what is (in effect) just a list of largely unnotable people. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Original contributor objected to PROD. Current references do not establish notability, almost all primary sources. Fails to have in-line citations required for BLP. Overly promotional. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have been given access to this id, but I am not the original author. I am trying to resolve the issues and improve the article in general. Ms. Batbrat's FaceBook pages have over half a million followers. Is this fact relevant for the notability discussion? I'm very new to this. Thanks for your patience. Wampyrie 08:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie ( talk • contribs)
Having dealt with the orphan and photo issues, I'm focusing my attention on the notability issue, specifically the problem that most sources are primary. I'm googling Ms BatBrat and looking for unrelated sources of information for her. Can you suggest any other tactics I might try to accomplish this? Thanks. Wampyrie 08:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie ( talk • contribs)
I have just removed the offending photos from the article a couple of days ago. Can you point me to where I can find how to establish notability? I would have thought multiple interviews, while not establishing notability on their own, would at least be considered in the overall picture. thanks for your help. remember, I'm learning as we go. like how to sign Wampyrie 19:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. !voters post the relist mostly seem to agree with Zahne and Orthodox Church's position of his (along with enough coverage to go along with WP:GNG). If anyone wants a merge, free to discuss on talk page of the article itself. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 13:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This article has almost no sources and not even a serious claim to notability. He was an old clergyman, and... yeah, that's it. WP:NOPAGE, and nowhere to redirect it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Unremarkable entrepreneur, who does not meet WP:BIO. Sourcing is in passing. Article is in odor of WP:SPIP. The creator has very few contributions in wiki outside of this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. 1l2l3k ( talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. And SALT... Randykitty ( talk) 15:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Purely promotional article about a kick start campaigner with no notability. The same user has created the same article 3 times. The last 2 it was speedily deleted. No idea why it wasn't again. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 02:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate notability Mccapra ( talk) 06:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced and basically empty of content. Do we really need a placeholder for when Cambodia eventually wins some international beauty thingummy? Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
This poor fellow got the Scarlet Letter of a Wikipedia BLP for being the illegitimate child of the wife of Abraham Lincoln's great-great grandson.
There are WP:RS, however, with two exceptions they simply mention this guy's existence in relation to the paternity lawsuit his mother launched when he was an infant. The two exceptions are articles which basically report on the subject politely saying "no comment" when being hounded by reporters for quotes followed by, what appears to be, simply a regurgitation of this very WP entry.
On the basis of both WP:BLP1E and WP:INHERITED I think we should dispense with this article. Chetsford ( talk) 10:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG; received very little RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced unreleased film. Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 09:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The show fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and thus WP:TVSERIES because the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. In my BEFORE search, I only found an announcement of the show https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/natl-geo-serving-hard-time-77309 which is not SIGCOV nor proves it's notability. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm using this as an episode guide. Not sure what in hell that has to do with encyclopedias, but it's a widespread practice these days. 63.155.51.223 ( talk) 09:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Opinion is split. Also, the article was substantially edited during the AfD, and comments later in the discussion (after the improvements) seem to be more favorable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The only stated notability claim here is that he and his work exist, and the sources are an online bookstore, his author profile on the self-published website of his own publishing company, and a single news article in which he isn't the subject, but merely gets glancingly namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else -- none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his books technically metaverify their own existence -- he has to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his books available on Amazon or Abebooks, to be considered notable enough. Bearcat ( talk) 22:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"major, well-established academic journal". Article itself seems to mainly consist of his version of the Red Baron shootdown debate. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to AKD Group. Randykitty ( talk) 14:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP. Any useful content could be merged into AKD Group. Edwardx ( talk) 11:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG; subject has received very little RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 18:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NMODEL or WP:NMUSIC. References are not third party independent reliable sources, and the only real mentions I can find are about being Trevor Noah's girlfriend. LovelyLillith ( talk) 02:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF, considering that its lack of distribution does not seem notable. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A list of programming right down to the half hour time slot of a single TV station. Unsourced (since 2007) and fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE ... no evidence of notability nor any significance or importance that fits into an encyclopedia. Creator of the article has been blocked since 2007. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because it links to this article and the only target remaining (that isn't a red link) redirects somewhere else and has already been dealt with:
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Résumé-esque and completely unsourced article about a television producer. As always, this role does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every television producer who exists -- she needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her to get over WP:GNG, but apart from the external link to the self-published website of a show she's directly affiliated with this article has been completely unreferenced since the day it was created in 2007. It's also a probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username ("Sp9wd") to the subject's name and the name of the show she produce(s/d). Bearcat ( talk) 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
No evidence that this is notable yet. Still in beta. Fram ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A BEFORE search finds no significant RS in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com. Large parts of article appear to be copyvio of this [18] and the cover flap of his book "In the Same Light as Slavery." Chetsford ( talk) 04:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable World Cup match with no long-term implications that are independent of other matches. Sounder Bruce 04:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved(emphasis mine). World Cup matches are widely covered but this is very much in the definition of routine (for a World Cup match). A rule of thumb is whether the specific match permeates beyond normal media and has lasting effects. Almost all World Cup matches fail this criteria. Sounder Bruce 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
While a presenter at BBC Radio may like his work, and while he may have had an interesting turn where he won a prize in a sidewalk art contest for kids (mentioned in a local newspaper), the article itself gives no indication that he's attained real attention in his career, and I find no evidence that he meets the notability criteria in outside sources. Just 94 Google hits for "dj matt black", none of them providing any coverage for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Largoplazo ( talk) 03:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Rebut This is still a new resouce as it stands, this artcle fits the notability criteria within its respective community and more resources will be added such... Spinnin Records Highest Global Chart rank 37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAudioArtistSubmiter ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is an original research toward a subject that is on itself not notable. The sources are used as WP:COATRACK to accumulate sentences toward the title, but such endeavor did not have the desired outcome. Suggest deletion. 1l2l3k ( talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedy keep. Mis-nomination based on a test edit (non-admin closure) [ Username Needed 11:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this is someone's user page that ended up in the mainspace by accident? I honestly don't know what this page is. Xevus11 ( talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The USL W-League was not a WP:FPL, so this page fails WP:NSEASONS. None of the listed references are enough to meet WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
All the provided sources are in PR/business-churnalism publications. An internet search didn't return anything better. Awards won don't appear to be notable. Does not meet WP:NORG. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No sources found, no indication of notability Mccapra ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD. This seems to be insufficiently notable for an article. The sources are few and poor. Two of them are by the same author and one is primary. At least one is not RS. This is nowhere near meeting our requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources. Looking in Google Books, Newspapers and Scholar it seems that this political usage is not even the most widely used meaning the term has. (It mostly seems to refer to something religious, which I did not look at closely as it is very obviously nothing to do with the subject of this article. I have no idea whether that is notable but if it is then it would seem to have a better claim on this article title than this subject.) There is also something called the "Fish Hook Effect" which turns up in searches but that is something to do with meteorology and is no help here. This subject barely pokes its head out of the RS Google hits. There is just enough to provide verifiability that the theory does exist but it seems to be one academic's personal theory with just a few fans. There is nothing wrong with that (And who knows whether it will become more widely accepted in the future?) but it does not qualify for an article at this time. It already has quite sufficient (possibly rather more than sufficient) coverage in the Horseshoe theory article. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Singer has received little significant coverage in reliable sources in her own right, and her discography is not nearly as impressive as it appears in the article. Wading through several broken links and retail sites, you will find that she has performed as a "featured" singer in a few tracks by other people, and those few songs have been used in repetitive various-artist compilations and remix albums. I can find no music released under her own name, or media notice of her appearances with others, so her independent notability is suspect. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. On second thought, an AfD with nobody but the nominator supporting deletion after 2 weeks isn't going anywhere. Sandstein 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:
This USGS entry tells part of the story (select the "Impact" section for a description of where this event was felt (felt events aren't notable))
Off-wiki activities keeping me preoccupied lately. Please do not close discussion yet. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
What I'm seeing with this AfD are that inexperienced editors are making statements about this situation. I can say that with confidence because the responses to their statements have included questions that have gone unanswered. The opposition to the deletion have not yet made arguments for keeping the article. None of them has experience in the earthquake article space (if I've overlooked or missed your significant contributions for some reason please post links to earthquake articles). My thinking is this: How is one supposed to decide whether an earthquake is notable or not if they've never worked on an earthquake article? This AfD is about the maintenance of a WikiProject's articles.
That scientists have an interest in a particular event and our decision to create an encyclopedia article on it do not always coincide. In other words, scientific interest and encyclopedic notability on WP aren't always the same thing. Or this question could be posed: that there are scientific papers show that the event was worthy of study in their eyes, but how and why does that also mean that it is (by default) notable in ours? This is the question that needs to be answered.
There's way more nuance about writing earthquake articles than most editors realize. That scientists are writing about earthquakes can sometimes bolster an article's potential here on WP, but the event needs to have notable aspect. Damage and/or deaths is one of the simplest ways that editors can determine notability (does the event have lasting impact?). But there are other aspects that can also be looked at in situations (like this one) that lack those obvious factors. So, what are they? That the EQ happened is not enough for an encyclopedia article. We are not an earthquake catalog that lists miscellaneous events. That would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
So that is the question. What are the sources (that Icewhiz posted) saying that makes this a notable event? That this question has not been answered yet is because the involved editors are out of their comfort zone. E.M.Gregory was short with me for this very reason.
To summarize the question once more: It is the content of the sources that we're needing to look at. Said another way: there are many instances of journal articles about earthquakes for which we would not create an encyclopedia article. Dawnseeker2000 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. Out of 28 references here, not a single one represents reliable source coverage about him -- every single footnote is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, a piece of his own bylined writing about other things, a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than him, a WordPress, Blogspot or LiveJournal blog, or a primary source. And even the literary awards he's won are not major ones that constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass -- they're minor ones that can be sourced only to their own self-published websites. But the question of whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it hinges not on verification that the award exists, but on media caring enough about it to report its winners as news. Writers, as always, are not automatically notable just because their own writings and other primary sources provide technical verification that they exist -- the notability test for a writer is not the degree to which he has been the creator of content about other things, but the degree to which he has been the subject of journalism about him created by other people, and not a single source here offers any such thing. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Contributingauthor" and the overwhelming majority of their entire Wikipedia edit history has been to this article itself. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable longevity claim. This got a very short spate of attention, and we learn from the article that she took traditional medicine, she had kids, she liked certain kinds of food, and she died. This is best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A longevity claim with almost no substance. Basically all the sources say she lived and died, and have no material about her life in any way. This is best handled on the Longevity claims page in a list. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Biography of a person whose claim of notability as a moderator and creator of early computer bulletin board forums is not reliably sourced. Two of the four footnotes here definitively fail to mention his name at all, serving only to tangentially verify stray facts about the forums, while a third wants me to pay $51 for the privilege of reading it to verify whether it actually addresses him as a person or not. And the only other source here is a short biographical blurb in the finding aid to an archival collection of printouts of posts to the forum he organized, which means even that collection isn't really about him to any non-trivial degree either. These sources would quite honestly be stronger support for WP:CORP articles about the bulletin boards than they are for a biographical article about him as a person. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm not 100% sure on the fomratting of how to post this comment/vote & so I appreciate your patience. I've been doing work in the ONE archives, which holds the finding aid you reference. The collections there are are about him -- to a substantial degree. In additional to biographical information about Charnow, there are printouts from the BBS which include: stories about his diagnosis, the people he helped as an AIDS activist, and interviews he conducted with doctors and physicians which he made available on the BBS. The BBS was one of the first of its kind to spread awareness about AIDS and seems to be the only one archived with primary source material. If you request the information from the archives, it's readily available. What would be the best protocol here? Surely his work is notable, if sticky to acquire. This seems to be the case with underground early internet movements, and is compounded by the urgency of the AIDS crisis. I have photographs and scans from his work in the archives which I can make available here. The protocol for original research made this murky. Kbbrewster ( talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep here, even the Weak Delete !vote said the article is well sourced. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLP1E. Ms Smith is notable for only one event, is an otherwise low profile individual, and even the event itself isn't that significant. Merge with main Tsunami article if preferred, but it certainly doesn't warrant an individual article about her. FirefoxLSD ( talk) 13:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Weak Delete There isn't any doubt that the account is well sourced, but nevertheless this doesn't seem to be particularly notable, more than a decade after the event. Those sources don't add anything new to the account - they just retell the same event again and again. Even at the time, I recall that it was debated whether she actually saved 100 people, as opposed to giving the warning to a few, resulting in the evacuation. Firefox's claim that she isn't notable at all seems a little outlandish, but equally her notability was very much something of the time. Since then she has fallen into obscurity, and the newer news articles don't add anything. In two of the three sources Houseofchange lists, she is given a cursory mention: not enough to warrant notability. TeddyBiffles ( talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment : Has anyone checked for Thai language sources on the subject? That may be relevant to this AfD. Thsmi002 ( talk) 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Per previous speedy deletion and PROD requests: "Slavic migrations" as a distinct historical period is WP:OR; most of the dates mentioned have nothing to do with any Slavic migrations; the topic is already dealt with far better at Early Slavs and related articles; and the page was created by veteran sockmaster with a rather long history of pushing fringe POVs on early Slavic history and the very dubious-quality History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations as a source, so WP:DENY applies. Constantine ✍ 15:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Several articles mere-mention the subject, and a few quote him, but there doesn't appear to be enough information about Ignasi Puig Claret himself to justify an article–the article as written currently reflects this, as essentially all of the content is about the company the subject founded, SCPF. The only source that appears to provide in-depth coverage of the subject ( [12]) does not appear to be a reliable source. I was not able to find additional sources online in English, Spanish, or Catalan. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
In 2018 the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson convened him as CEO of the agency MiNY. [1] [2]
I was out and did not know that the article had been approved and postulated for deletion on the same day. Puig Claret is one of the most important publicists in Spain, I think the biggest coverage that a publicist can have will be in publications of the advertising industry. Thank you!-- Ciprinido75 ( talk) 03:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ciprinido75 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
References
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Promotional and not notable. Only mentioned as part of a group of female Harley riders in India. — Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete per author request. Hut 8.5 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Really not sure what this is for, and will need far too much work what what is (in effect) just a list of largely unnotable people. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Original contributor objected to PROD. Current references do not establish notability, almost all primary sources. Fails to have in-line citations required for BLP. Overly promotional. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have been given access to this id, but I am not the original author. I am trying to resolve the issues and improve the article in general. Ms. Batbrat's FaceBook pages have over half a million followers. Is this fact relevant for the notability discussion? I'm very new to this. Thanks for your patience. Wampyrie 08:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie ( talk • contribs)
Having dealt with the orphan and photo issues, I'm focusing my attention on the notability issue, specifically the problem that most sources are primary. I'm googling Ms BatBrat and looking for unrelated sources of information for her. Can you suggest any other tactics I might try to accomplish this? Thanks. Wampyrie 08:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie ( talk • contribs)
I have just removed the offending photos from the article a couple of days ago. Can you point me to where I can find how to establish notability? I would have thought multiple interviews, while not establishing notability on their own, would at least be considered in the overall picture. thanks for your help. remember, I'm learning as we go. like how to sign Wampyrie 19:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. !voters post the relist mostly seem to agree with Zahne and Orthodox Church's position of his (along with enough coverage to go along with WP:GNG). If anyone wants a merge, free to discuss on talk page of the article itself. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 13:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This article has almost no sources and not even a serious claim to notability. He was an old clergyman, and... yeah, that's it. WP:NOPAGE, and nowhere to redirect it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Unremarkable entrepreneur, who does not meet WP:BIO. Sourcing is in passing. Article is in odor of WP:SPIP. The creator has very few contributions in wiki outside of this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. 1l2l3k ( talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. And SALT... Randykitty ( talk) 15:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Purely promotional article about a kick start campaigner with no notability. The same user has created the same article 3 times. The last 2 it was speedily deleted. No idea why it wasn't again. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 02:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate notability Mccapra ( talk) 06:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced and basically empty of content. Do we really need a placeholder for when Cambodia eventually wins some international beauty thingummy? Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
This poor fellow got the Scarlet Letter of a Wikipedia BLP for being the illegitimate child of the wife of Abraham Lincoln's great-great grandson.
There are WP:RS, however, with two exceptions they simply mention this guy's existence in relation to the paternity lawsuit his mother launched when he was an infant. The two exceptions are articles which basically report on the subject politely saying "no comment" when being hounded by reporters for quotes followed by, what appears to be, simply a regurgitation of this very WP entry.
On the basis of both WP:BLP1E and WP:INHERITED I think we should dispense with this article. Chetsford ( talk) 10:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG; received very little RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced unreleased film. Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 09:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The show fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and thus WP:TVSERIES because the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. In my BEFORE search, I only found an announcement of the show https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/natl-geo-serving-hard-time-77309 which is not SIGCOV nor proves it's notability. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm using this as an episode guide. Not sure what in hell that has to do with encyclopedias, but it's a widespread practice these days. 63.155.51.223 ( talk) 09:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Opinion is split. Also, the article was substantially edited during the AfD, and comments later in the discussion (after the improvements) seem to be more favorable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The only stated notability claim here is that he and his work exist, and the sources are an online bookstore, his author profile on the self-published website of his own publishing company, and a single news article in which he isn't the subject, but merely gets glancingly namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else -- none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his books technically metaverify their own existence -- he has to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his books available on Amazon or Abebooks, to be considered notable enough. Bearcat ( talk) 22:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"major, well-established academic journal". Article itself seems to mainly consist of his version of the Red Baron shootdown debate. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to AKD Group. Randykitty ( talk) 14:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP. Any useful content could be merged into AKD Group. Edwardx ( talk) 11:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG; subject has received very little RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 18:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NMODEL or WP:NMUSIC. References are not third party independent reliable sources, and the only real mentions I can find are about being Trevor Noah's girlfriend. LovelyLillith ( talk) 02:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF, considering that its lack of distribution does not seem notable. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A list of programming right down to the half hour time slot of a single TV station. Unsourced (since 2007) and fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE ... no evidence of notability nor any significance or importance that fits into an encyclopedia. Creator of the article has been blocked since 2007. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because it links to this article and the only target remaining (that isn't a red link) redirects somewhere else and has already been dealt with:
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Résumé-esque and completely unsourced article about a television producer. As always, this role does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every television producer who exists -- she needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her to get over WP:GNG, but apart from the external link to the self-published website of a show she's directly affiliated with this article has been completely unreferenced since the day it was created in 2007. It's also a probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username ("Sp9wd") to the subject's name and the name of the show she produce(s/d). Bearcat ( talk) 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
No evidence that this is notable yet. Still in beta. Fram ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A BEFORE search finds no significant RS in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com. Large parts of article appear to be copyvio of this [18] and the cover flap of his book "In the Same Light as Slavery." Chetsford ( talk) 04:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable World Cup match with no long-term implications that are independent of other matches. Sounder Bruce 04:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved(emphasis mine). World Cup matches are widely covered but this is very much in the definition of routine (for a World Cup match). A rule of thumb is whether the specific match permeates beyond normal media and has lasting effects. Almost all World Cup matches fail this criteria. Sounder Bruce 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
While a presenter at BBC Radio may like his work, and while he may have had an interesting turn where he won a prize in a sidewalk art contest for kids (mentioned in a local newspaper), the article itself gives no indication that he's attained real attention in his career, and I find no evidence that he meets the notability criteria in outside sources. Just 94 Google hits for "dj matt black", none of them providing any coverage for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Largoplazo ( talk) 03:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Rebut This is still a new resouce as it stands, this artcle fits the notability criteria within its respective community and more resources will be added such... Spinnin Records Highest Global Chart rank 37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAudioArtistSubmiter ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is an original research toward a subject that is on itself not notable. The sources are used as WP:COATRACK to accumulate sentences toward the title, but such endeavor did not have the desired outcome. Suggest deletion. 1l2l3k ( talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)