![]() |
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG converse 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No Notability at all. Article seems to be made for promotional purpose. Swim45 ( talk) 07:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
She is low-profile individual and an example of WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:GNG because she has not garnered sustained coverage Swim45 ( talk) 07:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Source searches are not providing multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only name checks, quotations (which are primary in nature) and faint passing mentions. North America 1000 23:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the nominator's reasons for deletion, or in the case of AlessandroTiandelli333's opinion, have been convincingly rebutted. Sandstein 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This page should be deleted because:
1) This page lacks notability. Specifically there is a lack of reliable sources indicating that the topic of "shortest-lived sovereign states" is notable, instead the only sources that can be found listing "shortest lived states" are blogs or similar non-reliable sources for this topic (e.g., HowStuffWorks.com). See WP:LISTN.
2) This page is the product of original research. There are no reliably-sourced list inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTCRITERIA), nor can any be produced because of the lack of notability of this subject, instead the editors have decided their own criteria. Few references are cited, none of which are both reliable sources for the subject under discussion (e.g., TASS is not an RS for Russia's annexation of the Crimea) AND state the length of existence of the state quoted in the article. Looking at the list, it appears that in most (all?) cases the editor has selected a date of creation, and a date of dissolution, and then measured the time between these points, without a reliable source indicating that these were the correct dates and this was the correct length of existence of the state. As a case-in-point, the Belarusian Democratic Republic is included in the list, but this still exists as a government in exile - so on what basis has it been included? In many cases it is doubtful whether a sovereign state really was created (e.g., brief rebellions, puppet states, states created purely for the purpose of annexation, states declared but with no evidence that the declaration was acted on).
3) The information on this page is not verifiable, since it is not supported by reliable sources. See WP:V FOARP ( talk) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I won't buy the argument that since many of the cast are notable enough for articles this filmette is notable; not only WP:NOTINHERITED but also those I looked at seemed to have very slender claims to notability. The Andrew Hurst who describes it as 'cute' is not a notable critic, merely some opinionated wannabe ( sorry, design-savvy content strategist and digital consultant) with a blog, & while I can find out enough about Hal C. F. Astel online to make me believe that he probably does exist I can't find anything to suggest that his opinion matters. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. NA1000's analysis of the sources is very clearly useful here. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Per source searches, I found this article, which provides significant coverage, is independent and reliable, but not finding anything else in terms of said necessary coverage. Searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions. Furthermore, all nine sources in the article are primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability, and no Wikipedia guidelines provide presumed notability for religious subjects. North America 1000 13:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
"Deseret is editorially independent, and it's a complex ownership structure", I'm not sure I follow you entirely. The sources in the article at the time of nomination were written and published by Church News, not Deseret News. Church News is not editorially independent, it's literally owned by the church. See also the publication's "About us" page, which states, "The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jointly published by the Deseret News and the LDS Church, its content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church." Deseret News uses Church News as a supplement, but Deseret News does not actually or literally write it, it essentially only distributes it. North America 1000 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
“ | The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. | ” |
Source | Analysis |
---|---|
MORMONS DISPUTE FAVORITISM IN GILBERT, Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]14 Apr 2000: A.1. photo of Andersen. | Not WP:SIGCOV: A photo of the subject. Is that all that's there? |
Church pushes for name change `Mormon' was once an insult; today, it just doesn't convey the church's beliefs: [Fourth Edition]. Ettenborough, Kelly. Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash. [Seattle, Wash]24 Mar 2001: C8. | (?) Cannot find source to assess it, after various searches. Comes across as being about the push for a name change, rather than being about providing significant biographical coverage about the subject himself. |
CITY COMMITTEE TAKING YEAR TO LOOK 25 YEARS DOWN ROAD, Beard, Betty. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]26 Sep 2000: 1. (member of a civic committee; non church-related civic participation) | (?) What does this article actually state about Andersen? Does this provide significant biographical coverage about the subject, or is it just about a city committee's activities, perhaps only mentioning or quoting the subject? |
TEACHERS REJECT BOARD'S SALARY OFFER: [Final Edition] From GAZETTE staff; wire reports.. Phoenix Gazette; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]20 Apr 1994: B2. (he wasa Chair of the school board) | (?) What does this article actually state about Andersen? He was part of a board whose proposition was rejected. Comes across as being about the rejection, rather than being about providing significant biographical coverage about the subject. |
Same-sex ban under protest during Mormon festivities, Greene, Katherine. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]29 Nov 2008: B.2. "The biggest donors to the Yes 4 Marriage campaign in Arizona, before the primaries, were Nancy and David LeSueur and Kathleen and Wilford Andersen, two prominent Mormon families in Mesa." | Not WP:SIGCOV: passing mention stating the subject's name and that he donated some of his money |
Faith groups backing Prop. 102; Pitzl, Mary Jo. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]03 Oct 2008: B.1. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment." | Not WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Two sentences, one of which consists of the subject doing or saying nothing. |
A MATTER OF FAITH EXCLUSION OF MORMONS FROM EVENT ILL-CONCEIVED; Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]01 Feb 2000: 4. (a major Christian ecumenical "Festival of Faite" to which Mormons were not invited.) "In his understated style, Wilford Andersen, chief spokesman for the Mormon church in Arizona, sounded a sympathetic chord:'They kind of have to walk a fine line in the Ecumenical Council so they don't lose the evangelical groups that take such hard positions against us.'" | Primary source: quotations from a subject, without any further information, are considered to be primary on English Wikipedia |
Inside a sacred house; Ferrier, Pat. Fort Collins Coloradoan; Fort Collins, Colo. [Fort Collins, Colo]24 Aug 2016: W.1. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..." | Primary source: quotations from a subject, without any further information, are considered to be primary on English Wikipedia |
This person donated money to a cause. [2] He did not return a phone call seeking comment. [2] Notes |
The result was keep. Sandstein 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
A bizarre article (and a few of the sourced ines are unreliable) that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of random data from a multitude of sources, irrelevant to one another. ∯WBG converse 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There isn't significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The numerous references are mostly to cases which just refer to the subject in his role as defence counsel. I'm not able to find any references substantially about the subject. I don't think one paragraph in the Charles Waterstreet piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is enough. Boneymau ( talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. The !keep votes are from accounts that are very unconvincing - indeed, I'll be off to SPI for one of them soon. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
One minor news article, the rest are his sources for making money. Small number of followers. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 ( talk) 14:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a WP:CFORK and nearly all the references are citing Wikipedia. This should be deleted or redirected to computer like the page uses of computer. Enwebb ( talk) 21:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
No reference or links, not sure what the Chinese name is or where exactly in Guizhou it's located. Timmyshin ( talk) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm threating the "redirect"s as "redirect once a suitable target article exists", because none has been proposed. Sandstein 14:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG I'd redirect to housing market in Sydney if it existed, although I also fail to see why the housing market in Sydney is especially worthy of an article. There is possible a case for an article on the distortion of local housing markets due to the need for student accommodation. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to T20 Global League. There is no consensus to delete the articles before redirecting; some editors want to retain history, only the nominator "prefers" to delete and redirect. There is no consensus on the amount of information to merge; this can be discussed on the talk page of the league if necessary, especially since the article histories won't be deleted. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
League was canceled so the these previous teams stand null and void. New teams are introduced and each one has article. This and other listed articles fail WP:CRIN. Störm (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 10:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Recreation of an article that was previously deleted, yet it still fails notability criteria. Appears to have been created by a an editor with a WP:COI (I suspect that Ericlrule is the Eric Lipscomb mentioned in the article). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO due to the person in question being notable only for one thing of minor notability. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was Closed as Speedy Delete-G6. -- Michael Greiner 01:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
If there is only one notable Chris Fussell, the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFILM the project is in actual fact a moneymaking scheme to promote local bands. On the director's facebook page [ [13]] he describes it as "Providing bands with an affordable way to capture and share their most valuable asset - the experience of their live performance." So we can deduce that the featured artists paid to be filmed and this page is most probably a WP:COI effort to promote his business. The flagpole articles look to be part of the promotional effort as are the other sources mostly blogs. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You can go ahead and just delete it through speedy deletion. E6fanatics ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Not notable and defunct; According to the website, "For now, we’ve decided to pause Recovering Yogi." — Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 12:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary content fork of Houston and SMU football teams. Article is poorly sourced; very poorly sourced in the claim that this is a rivalry. p b p 15:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.
To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."
In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. The Japanese characters brought up nothing of substance anywhere. Ja.wiki has a disambiguation page for the name, ja:田中一郎, which notes that it's a very common name, so that makes searching all the more difficult.
He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article, except for the above-noted disambiguation page.
In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Although a significant number of sources in the article, they are essentially all of a routine nature with little to indicate the player gained significant coverage for any achievements of note. The keep votes present no further evidence to satisfy GNG and are speculative at best. Fenix down ( talk) 00:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as lacking non-routine coverage other than obituary in local paper; no coverage after obituary. Although Peecock played in football matches, this does not override GNG per the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Kges1901 ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As GiantSnowman says, the article is well researched. It cites several contemporary local newspapers. I'd guess that if there had been anything resembling notability, the page's creator would have found it and used it. I've done a fair bit of research on pre-League players: some were covered at the time in enough depth to pass GNG, but this chap doesn't seem to be one of them.
As to the Ipswich Town FC book mentioned by SportingFlyer, without access to it we can't tell whether it covers him non-routinely or not: the blogger "reviewing" it highlights the amusing names belonging to some of the club's early players, among which several Peecocks, but gives no indication of depth of coverage. Mentions in a history of a club that turned professional 40+ years after he played for it isn't enough for GNG. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paul G. Comba. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for places. Article is at least 11 years old, and still has no sources. I attempted to find other external sources documenting its existence or notability, and could not. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
There are two problems with this page, notability and tone. First, it does not satisfy product notability. A Google search reveals that the product exists; we knew that. It also reveals that the product is advertised; we could have guessed that. It does not find independent coverage. Second, this page reads like an advertisement. That isn't reason for deletion, only for trimming, but not much will be left after trimming the promotional language. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Non substantive and non encyclopaedic. No indication that this is a recognised term in general use. Mccapra ( talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This recently accepted draft appears to be lacking references which speak directly about the subject, in depth. Of the references listed, they are either to the subject's own site, in passing mentions, or not mentioned at all. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to List of institutions of higher education in Bangalore. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No sources besides a primary external link. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Killer Angels. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
An article about a minor fictional character? Qwirkle ( talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources do not mention the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:ANYBIO. Lacks the detailed independent sources required John from Idegon ( talk) 07:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Written Hokkien. Sandstein 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Not actually a distinct writing system, it's just Chinese characters (with some unique ones, but it's still not as distinct as, say, Chu Nom. Not notable, google search returned nothing, couldn't find an indication of topic's notability from a brief search of scholarly database. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was Procedural close. Deletion is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Donald Trump's false and misleading claims which is the more appropriate venue for a redirect discussion Spinning Spark 14:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Reason Markbassett ( talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I nominate that redirect for deletion as a very recent non-useful POVTITLE WP:RNEUTRAL concern that is just a descriptive formed by a WP editor. Redirect creation seems an impulsive act during a move discussion that went against using the title, and is not useful for search, so now just needs cleanup.
The redirect is a descriptive formed by editors and not a term in common use. It is appears to be a WP:POVTITLE, placing a mildly derogatory title into WP that is not useful. In particular, searches for similar phrasings seem able to find relevant pages without this redirect. This redirect therefore seems to fit the WP:RNEUTRAL section : "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3".
The phrasing "false and misleading" is one tied to advertising, often followed by the word "claims", and in the context of all "Donald Trump" in Google (currently 241 Million), it is highly uncommon - googling with both phrases hits only 22,100. The problem seems that "false" is by far the COMMONNAME, with 58.9 million -- the simpler "false statements" at 406,000 dominates and a synthesis with the uncommon "misleading" into "false and misleading" is highly uncommon.
Further background:
The page was created while a discussion was ongoing over a proposed move to this title at | Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_25_October_2018.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 07:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:TOOSOON. This is still over 3 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.' The host city, date, and venue has been announced, and there is no reason to think the event will not be notable, as all past annual NBA All-Star Games have been. At this point, WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again."— Bagumba ( talk) 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG converse 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No Notability at all. Article seems to be made for promotional purpose. Swim45 ( talk) 07:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
She is low-profile individual and an example of WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:GNG because she has not garnered sustained coverage Swim45 ( talk) 07:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Source searches are not providing multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only name checks, quotations (which are primary in nature) and faint passing mentions. North America 1000 23:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the nominator's reasons for deletion, or in the case of AlessandroTiandelli333's opinion, have been convincingly rebutted. Sandstein 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This page should be deleted because:
1) This page lacks notability. Specifically there is a lack of reliable sources indicating that the topic of "shortest-lived sovereign states" is notable, instead the only sources that can be found listing "shortest lived states" are blogs or similar non-reliable sources for this topic (e.g., HowStuffWorks.com). See WP:LISTN.
2) This page is the product of original research. There are no reliably-sourced list inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTCRITERIA), nor can any be produced because of the lack of notability of this subject, instead the editors have decided their own criteria. Few references are cited, none of which are both reliable sources for the subject under discussion (e.g., TASS is not an RS for Russia's annexation of the Crimea) AND state the length of existence of the state quoted in the article. Looking at the list, it appears that in most (all?) cases the editor has selected a date of creation, and a date of dissolution, and then measured the time between these points, without a reliable source indicating that these were the correct dates and this was the correct length of existence of the state. As a case-in-point, the Belarusian Democratic Republic is included in the list, but this still exists as a government in exile - so on what basis has it been included? In many cases it is doubtful whether a sovereign state really was created (e.g., brief rebellions, puppet states, states created purely for the purpose of annexation, states declared but with no evidence that the declaration was acted on).
3) The information on this page is not verifiable, since it is not supported by reliable sources. See WP:V FOARP ( talk) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I won't buy the argument that since many of the cast are notable enough for articles this filmette is notable; not only WP:NOTINHERITED but also those I looked at seemed to have very slender claims to notability. The Andrew Hurst who describes it as 'cute' is not a notable critic, merely some opinionated wannabe ( sorry, design-savvy content strategist and digital consultant) with a blog, & while I can find out enough about Hal C. F. Astel online to make me believe that he probably does exist I can't find anything to suggest that his opinion matters. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. NA1000's analysis of the sources is very clearly useful here. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Per source searches, I found this article, which provides significant coverage, is independent and reliable, but not finding anything else in terms of said necessary coverage. Searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions. Furthermore, all nine sources in the article are primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability, and no Wikipedia guidelines provide presumed notability for religious subjects. North America 1000 13:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
"Deseret is editorially independent, and it's a complex ownership structure", I'm not sure I follow you entirely. The sources in the article at the time of nomination were written and published by Church News, not Deseret News. Church News is not editorially independent, it's literally owned by the church. See also the publication's "About us" page, which states, "The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jointly published by the Deseret News and the LDS Church, its content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church." Deseret News uses Church News as a supplement, but Deseret News does not actually or literally write it, it essentially only distributes it. North America 1000 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
“ | The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. | ” |
Source | Analysis |
---|---|
MORMONS DISPUTE FAVORITISM IN GILBERT, Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]14 Apr 2000: A.1. photo of Andersen. | Not WP:SIGCOV: A photo of the subject. Is that all that's there? |
Church pushes for name change `Mormon' was once an insult; today, it just doesn't convey the church's beliefs: [Fourth Edition]. Ettenborough, Kelly. Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash. [Seattle, Wash]24 Mar 2001: C8. | (?) Cannot find source to assess it, after various searches. Comes across as being about the push for a name change, rather than being about providing significant biographical coverage about the subject himself. |
CITY COMMITTEE TAKING YEAR TO LOOK 25 YEARS DOWN ROAD, Beard, Betty. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]26 Sep 2000: 1. (member of a civic committee; non church-related civic participation) | (?) What does this article actually state about Andersen? Does this provide significant biographical coverage about the subject, or is it just about a city committee's activities, perhaps only mentioning or quoting the subject? |
TEACHERS REJECT BOARD'S SALARY OFFER: [Final Edition] From GAZETTE staff; wire reports.. Phoenix Gazette; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]20 Apr 1994: B2. (he wasa Chair of the school board) | (?) What does this article actually state about Andersen? He was part of a board whose proposition was rejected. Comes across as being about the rejection, rather than being about providing significant biographical coverage about the subject. |
Same-sex ban under protest during Mormon festivities, Greene, Katherine. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]29 Nov 2008: B.2. "The biggest donors to the Yes 4 Marriage campaign in Arizona, before the primaries, were Nancy and David LeSueur and Kathleen and Wilford Andersen, two prominent Mormon families in Mesa." | Not WP:SIGCOV: passing mention stating the subject's name and that he donated some of his money |
Faith groups backing Prop. 102; Pitzl, Mary Jo. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]03 Oct 2008: B.1. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment." | Not WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Two sentences, one of which consists of the subject doing or saying nothing. |
A MATTER OF FAITH EXCLUSION OF MORMONS FROM EVENT ILL-CONCEIVED; Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]01 Feb 2000: 4. (a major Christian ecumenical "Festival of Faite" to which Mormons were not invited.) "In his understated style, Wilford Andersen, chief spokesman for the Mormon church in Arizona, sounded a sympathetic chord:'They kind of have to walk a fine line in the Ecumenical Council so they don't lose the evangelical groups that take such hard positions against us.'" | Primary source: quotations from a subject, without any further information, are considered to be primary on English Wikipedia |
Inside a sacred house; Ferrier, Pat. Fort Collins Coloradoan; Fort Collins, Colo. [Fort Collins, Colo]24 Aug 2016: W.1. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..." | Primary source: quotations from a subject, without any further information, are considered to be primary on English Wikipedia |
This person donated money to a cause. [2] He did not return a phone call seeking comment. [2] Notes |
The result was keep. Sandstein 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
A bizarre article (and a few of the sourced ines are unreliable) that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of random data from a multitude of sources, irrelevant to one another. ∯WBG converse 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There isn't significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The numerous references are mostly to cases which just refer to the subject in his role as defence counsel. I'm not able to find any references substantially about the subject. I don't think one paragraph in the Charles Waterstreet piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is enough. Boneymau ( talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. The !keep votes are from accounts that are very unconvincing - indeed, I'll be off to SPI for one of them soon. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
One minor news article, the rest are his sources for making money. Small number of followers. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 ( talk) 14:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a WP:CFORK and nearly all the references are citing Wikipedia. This should be deleted or redirected to computer like the page uses of computer. Enwebb ( talk) 21:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
No reference or links, not sure what the Chinese name is or where exactly in Guizhou it's located. Timmyshin ( talk) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm threating the "redirect"s as "redirect once a suitable target article exists", because none has been proposed. Sandstein 14:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG I'd redirect to housing market in Sydney if it existed, although I also fail to see why the housing market in Sydney is especially worthy of an article. There is possible a case for an article on the distortion of local housing markets due to the need for student accommodation. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to T20 Global League. There is no consensus to delete the articles before redirecting; some editors want to retain history, only the nominator "prefers" to delete and redirect. There is no consensus on the amount of information to merge; this can be discussed on the talk page of the league if necessary, especially since the article histories won't be deleted. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
League was canceled so the these previous teams stand null and void. New teams are introduced and each one has article. This and other listed articles fail WP:CRIN. Störm (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 10:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Recreation of an article that was previously deleted, yet it still fails notability criteria. Appears to have been created by a an editor with a WP:COI (I suspect that Ericlrule is the Eric Lipscomb mentioned in the article). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO due to the person in question being notable only for one thing of minor notability. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was Closed as Speedy Delete-G6. -- Michael Greiner 01:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
If there is only one notable Chris Fussell, the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFILM the project is in actual fact a moneymaking scheme to promote local bands. On the director's facebook page [ [13]] he describes it as "Providing bands with an affordable way to capture and share their most valuable asset - the experience of their live performance." So we can deduce that the featured artists paid to be filmed and this page is most probably a WP:COI effort to promote his business. The flagpole articles look to be part of the promotional effort as are the other sources mostly blogs. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You can go ahead and just delete it through speedy deletion. E6fanatics ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Not notable and defunct; According to the website, "For now, we’ve decided to pause Recovering Yogi." — Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 12:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary content fork of Houston and SMU football teams. Article is poorly sourced; very poorly sourced in the claim that this is a rivalry. p b p 15:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.
To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."
In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. The Japanese characters brought up nothing of substance anywhere. Ja.wiki has a disambiguation page for the name, ja:田中一郎, which notes that it's a very common name, so that makes searching all the more difficult.
He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article, except for the above-noted disambiguation page.
In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Although a significant number of sources in the article, they are essentially all of a routine nature with little to indicate the player gained significant coverage for any achievements of note. The keep votes present no further evidence to satisfy GNG and are speculative at best. Fenix down ( talk) 00:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as lacking non-routine coverage other than obituary in local paper; no coverage after obituary. Although Peecock played in football matches, this does not override GNG per the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Kges1901 ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As GiantSnowman says, the article is well researched. It cites several contemporary local newspapers. I'd guess that if there had been anything resembling notability, the page's creator would have found it and used it. I've done a fair bit of research on pre-League players: some were covered at the time in enough depth to pass GNG, but this chap doesn't seem to be one of them.
As to the Ipswich Town FC book mentioned by SportingFlyer, without access to it we can't tell whether it covers him non-routinely or not: the blogger "reviewing" it highlights the amusing names belonging to some of the club's early players, among which several Peecocks, but gives no indication of depth of coverage. Mentions in a history of a club that turned professional 40+ years after he played for it isn't enough for GNG. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paul G. Comba. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for places. Article is at least 11 years old, and still has no sources. I attempted to find other external sources documenting its existence or notability, and could not. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
There are two problems with this page, notability and tone. First, it does not satisfy product notability. A Google search reveals that the product exists; we knew that. It also reveals that the product is advertised; we could have guessed that. It does not find independent coverage. Second, this page reads like an advertisement. That isn't reason for deletion, only for trimming, but not much will be left after trimming the promotional language. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Non substantive and non encyclopaedic. No indication that this is a recognised term in general use. Mccapra ( talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This recently accepted draft appears to be lacking references which speak directly about the subject, in depth. Of the references listed, they are either to the subject's own site, in passing mentions, or not mentioned at all. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to List of institutions of higher education in Bangalore. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No sources besides a primary external link. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Killer Angels. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
An article about a minor fictional character? Qwirkle ( talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources do not mention the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:ANYBIO. Lacks the detailed independent sources required John from Idegon ( talk) 07:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Written Hokkien. Sandstein 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Not actually a distinct writing system, it's just Chinese characters (with some unique ones, but it's still not as distinct as, say, Chu Nom. Not notable, google search returned nothing, couldn't find an indication of topic's notability from a brief search of scholarly database. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was Procedural close. Deletion is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Donald Trump's false and misleading claims which is the more appropriate venue for a redirect discussion Spinning Spark 14:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Reason Markbassett ( talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I nominate that redirect for deletion as a very recent non-useful POVTITLE WP:RNEUTRAL concern that is just a descriptive formed by a WP editor. Redirect creation seems an impulsive act during a move discussion that went against using the title, and is not useful for search, so now just needs cleanup.
The redirect is a descriptive formed by editors and not a term in common use. It is appears to be a WP:POVTITLE, placing a mildly derogatory title into WP that is not useful. In particular, searches for similar phrasings seem able to find relevant pages without this redirect. This redirect therefore seems to fit the WP:RNEUTRAL section : "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3".
The phrasing "false and misleading" is one tied to advertising, often followed by the word "claims", and in the context of all "Donald Trump" in Google (currently 241 Million), it is highly uncommon - googling with both phrases hits only 22,100. The problem seems that "false" is by far the COMMONNAME, with 58.9 million -- the simpler "false statements" at 406,000 dominates and a synthesis with the uncommon "misleading" into "false and misleading" is highly uncommon.
Further background:
The page was created while a discussion was ongoing over a proposed move to this title at | Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_25_October_2018.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 07:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:TOOSOON. This is still over 3 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.' The host city, date, and venue has been announced, and there is no reason to think the event will not be notable, as all past annual NBA All-Star Games have been. At this point, WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again."— Bagumba ( talk) 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)