![]() |
The result was speedy delete G4. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This just went through AfD, but someone removed the G4 template, so here we go again. Article still doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There was some recent addition of stuff after the CSD, but I reverted it due to it being non-neutral and sourced from wholly unreliable sources. Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible fancraft. List doesn't have third party sources in the article. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Unreleased non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity ( talk) 23:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This article hasn't been expanded much at all. The searches I've been getting have reliable sources, but the sources talk the subject very vaguely which means it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. There are no subject-specific notability guidelines about the animal. For these reasons, I think this is a good candidate for deletion. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Manchester United were made for the reserve team, as laid out in the source in the article.. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Everton were made in reserve football, as laid out in the source in the article. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 or Litster's A Record Of Pre-War Scottish League Players. The appearances listed for Arsenal were made in the Southern League, presumably for the reserve team. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Arsenal were made in wartime football. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for York City and Wolverhampton Wanderers were made in wartime football. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are primary, and of those that are secondary and reliable (e.g., the Time article), none discuss the subject or are not useful in determining notability (i.e., being on the Forbes 30 for 30 list is not an established claim of notability). No information exists on which to base a WP:BLP, and ostensibly this article is more about the startup of which the subject is part. Kinu t/ c 22:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Some weak coverage of the FeverPhone project with which he is associated, but most of the coverage is mentions related to his listing on the Forbes 30 for 30 list, which by itself is not an established claim of notability. Some sources are primary, including Wordpress blogs and YouTube, and others are interviews and/or affiliated with the institutions at which he has studied/worked. Ultimately not enough on which to build a WP:BLP. Kinu t/ c 22:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible FANCRAFT and undiscriminitant list. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. A majority of the sourcing is to interviews with founders and other churnalism related to their startup and funding, but there is no in-depth coverage of the company itself. Kinu t/ c 19:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, non-notable assistant coach in NFL Europe and NFL (as a quality control coach). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
non notable business persons with 0 reliable sources, just black hat SEO fake sites and press releases. bundled with Jordan Lintz for obvious reasons. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Another one is Bloomberg of top news organizations and the articles are
Here,
Here and
Here.
In Jan 2020 the Lintz Brothers were named as two of the top 10 Instagram influencers by
The Post-Standard one of the major newspapers serving the greater Syracuse, New York, and the article is
here.
Three articles on Forbes,
Here,
Here and
Here, and widely covered by
Yahoo! Finance. Lintz brothers meets the requirements for a
WP:BIO page.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MackVenus (
talk •
contribs)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The references cited in the article are either unreliable or not independent. None of the subject's works have been discussed in reliable sources. This particular source is a wordpress source and cannot count towards notability. Being the head of a reliable organization is not enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Unreferenced article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, every TV show is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, but must still show some evidence of media coverage about it to establish its significance -- but even on a ProQuest search for contemporaneous coverage that would not Google well because this aired 15 years ago, literally all I was able to find was its network's own press releases about its own programming, which are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability, and a single wire service article, which is not enough coverage to get this over the bar all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source that can be found. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable company. GamerPro64 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:POET. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable coverage independent of her. Majority of the references cited in the article are about her mother's death. The accolades she's received are not notable. She has spoken at a TED conference and is the founder of a bunch of non-notable organizations. These things are not enough to justify stand-alone inclusion. The article is simply a promotional material written to promote the 23-year old individual. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A highly promotional article that lacks sources and in-depth coverage. He is only known for being the youngest person to run for President of Nigeria. The references cited in the article are either interviews or about the subject's presidential bid. Per WP:BIO1E, this article should be deleted. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2020 XFL season. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Championship game that was scheduled to happen but won't happen now, can easily merge material into 2020 XFL season. Not notable as a stand-alone article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, completely unsourced, written by “producer”. Kleuske ( talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, autobiographical, unsourced. Kleuske ( talk) 17:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, obvious WP:COI, far from neutral. Main purpose seems selfpromotion by the author. Kleuske ( talk) 17:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG no indication of notability whatsoever, can't see any in-depth coverage of him anywhere, just routine listings and primary sources. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable political party that sources exclusively to Instagram and google, has less than 25 members, has no elected officers, and seems to have no impact at all on anything. There does not appear to be any substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Doesn't look like any of their music has charted. Google search for "A1 Top Masta" comes up with fewer than 100 results, which appear to music directories or ticket vendors. A search for "顶级玩家" has many more results but still nothing approaching significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. (Note that 顶级玩家 apparently translates to "top players" so there are many irrelevant results in the Google search.) ... discospinster talk 13:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 05:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Smells of original research--no indication based on third-party coverage, or lack thereof, that this "fifth batch", nay the fourth, third, etc. should deserve their own pages. Little encyclopedic value, more like a vanity project for user:laohangzhou (no surprises given the name!) Kingoflettuce ( talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Gee, can't wait to see A Building at 19, Jin Chai Dai Alley and Buildings at 10, 12, 13, Zhupo Alley get its own article someday! Kingoflettuce ( talk) 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This started off as me helping an editor on Wikipedia "correct" some information on the article, but when I went to find some sources to back up even the most trivial information I hit a wall. 7 GNews hits and only a few tens of thousands of Google hits. Everything seems to be either a brief mention or promo for an upcoming film. Just not seeing the notability. Primefac ( talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It would appear Mr Rahman is a young musician from Bangladesh. This article fails any of the WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. While there appear to mentions of Zahid Rahman in Bengali language that might be considered as reliable sources, like or not, English language citations pretty much determine what is included on the English language Wikipedia. Maybe it shouldn't be? That's a discussion to made somewhere else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 11:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The article cites no non-primary sources. There is no indication that D&D warlords have any significance outside the game. Not a very active user ( talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of substantial secondary coverage that would indicate notability. Sourced using just IMDb for more than a decade. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Groner is mostly known as having been the secretary of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but notability is not inherited. The only reason for recent coverage is his death due to the coronavirus pandemic. Fails GNG and WP:SIGCOV on his own. — JFG talk 09:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Williamsdoritios ( talk) 05:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't find any independent and reliable coverage of this writer. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 1 housemates, the general consensus is that pretty much every contestant is non notable, contains an undue level of biographical profiling and fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Secondly, the amalgamated list, without all of the profiling, can be found under List of Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests or List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests and links to the very few notable names can be accessed from there. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related
TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Berthe Petit. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Self-publisher Lulu.com book. Fails WP:NBOOK, created by a vanished user who seems to mostly write from the Christian perspective. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Seriously questioning this meeting WP:GNG. Almost none of the sources are valid, most of the ones that aren't PR sites are guest posts/blogs by the subjects or people related to them. This also appears promotional as the claims aren't verifiable by 3rd party sources. Googling the people and their business names comes back to the same group of unreliable self created sources. JamesG5 ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The articles cited are about the webpage, not about her in particular. Google search for "Inky Gibbens" results in fewer than 100 results, with a lot of them being sketchy sites that link to her TEDx talk. ... discospinster talk 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This area does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 or WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Lakes Estates, California I am also nominating the following related pages because [Neighborhoods, census tracts, etc must pass WP:GEOLAND#2] the following areas do not meet our notability requirements:
The result was redirect to Shia–Sunni relations. Tone 19:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICTIONARY AtlasDuane ( talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
A search of newspapers.com did not reveal any coverage outside of the state of Nebraska and little within the state. Note that there are a lot of false positives related to the furniture company, Heywood-Wakefield Company, in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Raymie ( t • c) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Were there ever any references used for this article? How did it survive for this long? (I could find only refs for the company Raymie referenced and an Instagram personality.) JSFarman ( talk) 13:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Long overdue nomination of an unreferenced promotional page for a local bar band. Peacock text and COPYVIO that uses same verbiage from their promotional materials. Google returns run-of-the-mill appearance announcement, but no SIG COV. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 19:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Some of the "delete" arguments feel like borderline WP:JNN; I have discounted those. What matters is WP:GNG, which unfortunately wasn't quite written with academic topics in mind making it difficult to interpret. For example, what is a secondary source? What constitutes "independent"? The fact is that there is a lot of literature on this topic (plenty of it not by Kitaev), and I cannot make a determination as to whether they meet our requirements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 21 April 2020 (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}} . |
This article was written by a user with no other contributions who is a name match for Sergey Kitaev, the person who coined the term. The literature cited appears to be close to 100% of the published literature, and pretty much all of it is by him and his immediate collaborators. Google finds around 60 hits for the exact term. Google Scholar finds under 50, again with little or nothing outside Kitaev and his immediate collaborators. Every point of proof in the article that seeks to establish the existence, meaning or significance of the term, is a primary reference to Kitaev. Either this is a WP:NEOLOGISM, or it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Guy ( help!) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Not spam, but very new topic (mostly developed in the last five years) with limited literature as a result. It's not WP:FRINGE, but probably not mature or well-cited enough to be considered WP-notable as an article subject yet.Plus, almost none of the literature is independent of Kitaev in the sense that JzG mentions. Taku brings up that mathematical fields are niche, but there are varying degrees of niche-ness. In this case, it really does seem WP:TOOSOON. — MarkH21 talk 07:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
there are multiple papers on the subjectwould easily result in thousands of articles on really obscure topics, many of which would be incredibly WP:FRINGE. We definitely apply a higher standard than that, although this also meets a higher standard than that. — MarkH21 talk 12:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A few people have argued that there seems to be sufficient literature around this topic to justify its existence on wikipedia. However, this is a combination of three phenomena: 1) the catchall nature of combinatorics, which allows for a virtually infinite number of spinoffs from any topic, 2) pressure on researchers to publish, regardless of quality, and 3) lack of sufficient motive for referees to reject a paper based on its subject alone, given that other papers in the subject already exist. The combined effect of these factors makes it possible for a single researcher to begin with a combinatorial topic, write a few papers on it and publicize it, get co-authors to help, and eventually have other people writing and submitting these papers to journals, regardless of the quality of topic itself. This is what I perceive to have occurred in this case. I think we can agree that numbers alone (which in this case aren't impressive anyway) do not necessarily justify a topic, and in this situation I am confident they do not. There is another argument that like this field, mathematical fields are all niches. However, this particular area is so devoid of content that I do not even consider it mathematics to begin with. Even if you take a very specific subfield in mathematics, there are phenomena and problems in it which make you understand that it is real math; this even occurs in combinatorics which is generally considered as somewhat separate from the major structural pillars of math. It simply does not occur here. It is nothing but a random assortment of facts which have no meaning either individually or taken together. One can make as many empty citations to other papers in graph theory or semigroup theory, but that doesn't change the fact that if you take an honest, unbiased look at it, there is simply nothing here. If there was, it would have appeared within 15 years. Finally, I would like to address the argument that there are high caliber researchers working on this. This is already partially addressed by my first point. I will not dispute whether or not the people referenced are high caliber researchers. However, the nature of combinatorial research is twofold: researchers may publish very often, and sometimes they may work on a problem just because they want to, or a colleague mentions it. Thus, if a high caliber researcher in these fields spends time on a topic I deem uninteresting, I do not think any worse of the quality of that person's research. However, I do not think any better of that field itself. - Cyclicduck Cyclicduck ( talk) 00:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Cyclicduck ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Cyclicduck ( talk)
The result was keep. Merger can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
What makes Tolkien's troll notable enough for a stand-alone article? In the Tolkien Encyclopedia, they do not have a separate entry, just some mentions in passing here and there. They don't even get a dedicated paragraph in the entry on Monsters, where the book index suggests they should be discussed (page 433 if anyone cares to read it). All that entry says about them is a sentence or two about how the term is derived from Norse literature. Other than that, the article we have is pure WP:PLOT outside of the sentence or two based on concept art from the movie. I don't think this suffices, and BEFORE shows only fan PLOT-like discussions out there and likewise unreliable and trivial discussions of CGI from the movies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"In The Hobbit, trolls, orcs, and even the dragon operate simply within the fairy tale register. The trolls behave like the trolls of Scandinavian literature;"
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision with no independent notability. – dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable subdivision. – dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Has recurring roles in a few TV shows and a few movie credits, but not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable IT company that fails WP:NCORP. All the sources in the article are to their own website and nothing comes up in a search except for a few trivial sources. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Insufficient notability Hawol ( talk) 15:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I am the creator of this article and I now see that I was a bit too optimistic about its notability. This is a tiny field of Transpersonal Studies that has shown little or no development since its beginning. The field has produced a very small amount of literature, and there is hardly any new literature. The article is based mainly on primary references, only a few of the references are secondary. I did a thorough literature search and was not able to establish any more references for this article than the few references given. I propose that the article be deleted-- Hawol ( talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
2018-10 ✍️ create
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced, and content is a subset of what is already well covered by Number (sports). Recommend turn into a redirect to Number (sports). Dmoore5556 ( talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
As supported by source provided and topos, this is a railroad junction, not a community. Deprodder said "it appears to now be part of a suburb of Omaha, see the usual channel for merging this into the correct suburb" but there's nothing to merge. Again, this is a generic former railroad junction [22] [23] [24] not an unincorporated community as incorrectly claimed. Reywas92 Talk 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable defunct British company that made ladders. The article only has source that's a dead link about their closer and nothing comes in a Google search except for a Japanese company with the same name. So, it fails WP:NCORP. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In general, this kind of article can be expected to be structured similarly to Renewable energy in Afghanistan. It's supposed to be flat, plain, statistics about how much renewable energy a country generates, how much it could generate, and maybe a bit about the organizations that make it all happen.
This page is a substantial distance from seeing it get close to that. No other country page is styled "Green Economy in X," and none go into this level of detail about all the different initiatives a country is taking to support renewable energy. We need some WP:TNT here.
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
And this is where Wikipedia comes in: because when a country has a poor human rights record, it hurts investment. Reports appeared in 2012 that the Kazakh government was taking an active interest in Wikipedia, employing PR agencies to massage entries related to the country ( "Kazakhstan: Top-Notch PR Firms Help Brighten Astana's Image", "Tinkering with Wikipedia part of Kazakh government's PR strategy?").
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable company. The article only contains one source and nothing except trivial coverage comes up in a search. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable record label that was created by a single article editor. All the sources in the article trivial except for one. Which is an interview and therefore isn't a reliable source. Nothing comes up for them in a Google search to establish notability either. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. A summary of arguments comes down to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
After removing a lot of puffed-up, one-word mentions of the ocmpany used as sources, and after doing a search, I can only conclude that this is an WP:NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
One word mentions are not rrs" [25] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? Karieol51 ( talk) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision consisting of a few homes; no sign of a distinct community that would meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision lacks notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable book publisher that fails notability standards for companies. All the coverage of them is trivial and nothing comes up in a Google Search that establishes notability. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Davidbmumford 18:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbmumford ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision stub mass-created from GNIS, fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision does not meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 03:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Hasn't seemed to have any sources since the article was created in 2006 and nothing comes in a search except for trivial coverage of them being bought out by another company. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources with quotes
|
---|
|
Author and journalist Colette Braeckman wrote in a French-language book published by Fayard (the translation is from the Zed Books book), "'AMF already had acquired an office to buy diamonds, and in Lubumbashi, the company demonstrated their generosity to the rebels, who benefited by an "advance" of 51 million dollars … to finance the war still being fought and to secure a date for transactions in the future."
In 1998, The Wall Street Journal called the company "perhaps the most assiduous of the foreign firms currently seeking deals in Zaire".
A 2006 article in The Daily Telegraph said that Adastra Minerals "own[ed] the world's largest cobalt and copper surface resource at Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo".
The company received substantial analysis in a 2007 Zed Books book: "Behind the dead stood the profits of regional powers and multinationals. The current phase of plunder was often initiated by relatively small groups of speculators, who crisscrossed the Congo as Kabila's army approached the capital in 1997. There is no better example of this group than American Mineral Fields. Though listed on various stock exchanges they were in reality little more than 'adventurers' who lacked sufficient capital to invest in the concessions that were sold to them by Kabila. They were what the Congo expert Colette Braeckman has described as 'juniors', the advance guard who sought the investment and interest of bigger players."
The company has received significant coverage in international sources in Canada, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom: Canadian Business, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, Finweek, Forbes, New African, and The Wall Street Journal.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
One of many subdivisions in and around Charlottesville. Fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision consisting of a single street, no sign of notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision with no sign of notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable apartment complex. – dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yet another Charlottesville subdivision. Fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Google Maps shows a "Rockbrook" neighborhood 1/4 mile Northeast of here; no sign of a distinct or notable community at either location. – dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Neighborhood or subdivision, no sign of independent notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Apartment complex with no sign of being an "unincorporated community" or meeting GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. GirthSummit (blether) 09:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Using google translate, it appears the references either make minor mentions, no mention, or are blogs. This is a self-promotion page created by the subject. v/r - T P 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried to find some independent and reliable references about this school, but failed to get any. Nominating it for deletion as a complete reference less article. Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. I am withdrawing this AfD, seeing that Pharaoh of the Wizards has provided enough resources and improved the article anyway. As he has stated, the title of the article is wrong, this be concerned. Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 02:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. czar 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Unable to find further sources. ~ riley ( talk) 01:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Unable to find further sources that are reliable. ~ riley ( talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit (blether) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. References provided are not reliable (and predominantly social media sites), and WP:BEFORE finds nothing substantive to build a WP:BLP. An essentially identical draft at Draft:Shakeel Bin Afzal was rejected, and this article appears to have been created to circumvent the process. Kinu t/ c 00:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence of any significant coverage to show any sort of notability. A quick Google search of the person’s name shows no reliable sources showing any real coverage. EsotericJoe ( talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The coverage I can find of this group is limited to the scope of the Sundering of the Elves. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of coverage of this term itself in secondary sources, most of what I can find uses Calaquendi incidentally in mentions of various things the Elves did. I don't have access to many secondary print sources about Tolkien's works, although David Day's Tolkien: An Illustrated Atlas, which I do have a copy of, does not seem to mention this. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if it turns out Tom Shippey or another major Tolkien scholar gave this coverage. However, I can't find the sort of coverage that would warrant a stand-alone article - it's all about the Sundering of the Elves. Again, if I'm missing something, willing to withdraw this. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This article went through an informal peer review process, as can be seen on its talk page, but the participants apparently did not notice that the article does not function as an encyclopedic topic. It is full of original research and presented in the form of a personal essay that devolves into a promotion for the organizations listed at the end, with no explanation of how particular ones were chosen. Coatracking is possibly an issue as well. All of these are reflected in the vague and unspecific title. Some of the research in the article could possibly be merged to various organization articles. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedy delete G4. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This just went through AfD, but someone removed the G4 template, so here we go again. Article still doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There was some recent addition of stuff after the CSD, but I reverted it due to it being non-neutral and sourced from wholly unreliable sources. Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible fancraft. List doesn't have third party sources in the article. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Unreleased non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity ( talk) 23:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This article hasn't been expanded much at all. The searches I've been getting have reliable sources, but the sources talk the subject very vaguely which means it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. There are no subject-specific notability guidelines about the animal. For these reasons, I think this is a good candidate for deletion. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Manchester United were made for the reserve team, as laid out in the source in the article.. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Everton were made in reserve football, as laid out in the source in the article. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 or Litster's A Record Of Pre-War Scottish League Players. The appearances listed for Arsenal were made in the Southern League, presumably for the reserve team. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Arsenal were made in wartime football. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for York City and Wolverhampton Wanderers were made in wartime football. Beatpoet ( talk) 22:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are primary, and of those that are secondary and reliable (e.g., the Time article), none discuss the subject or are not useful in determining notability (i.e., being on the Forbes 30 for 30 list is not an established claim of notability). No information exists on which to base a WP:BLP, and ostensibly this article is more about the startup of which the subject is part. Kinu t/ c 22:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Some weak coverage of the FeverPhone project with which he is associated, but most of the coverage is mentions related to his listing on the Forbes 30 for 30 list, which by itself is not an established claim of notability. Some sources are primary, including Wordpress blogs and YouTube, and others are interviews and/or affiliated with the institutions at which he has studied/worked. Ultimately not enough on which to build a WP:BLP. Kinu t/ c 22:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible FANCRAFT and undiscriminitant list. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. A majority of the sourcing is to interviews with founders and other churnalism related to their startup and funding, but there is no in-depth coverage of the company itself. Kinu t/ c 19:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, non-notable assistant coach in NFL Europe and NFL (as a quality control coach). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
non notable business persons with 0 reliable sources, just black hat SEO fake sites and press releases. bundled with Jordan Lintz for obvious reasons. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Another one is Bloomberg of top news organizations and the articles are
Here,
Here and
Here.
In Jan 2020 the Lintz Brothers were named as two of the top 10 Instagram influencers by
The Post-Standard one of the major newspapers serving the greater Syracuse, New York, and the article is
here.
Three articles on Forbes,
Here,
Here and
Here, and widely covered by
Yahoo! Finance. Lintz brothers meets the requirements for a
WP:BIO page.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MackVenus (
talk •
contribs)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The references cited in the article are either unreliable or not independent. None of the subject's works have been discussed in reliable sources. This particular source is a wordpress source and cannot count towards notability. Being the head of a reliable organization is not enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Unreferenced article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, every TV show is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, but must still show some evidence of media coverage about it to establish its significance -- but even on a ProQuest search for contemporaneous coverage that would not Google well because this aired 15 years ago, literally all I was able to find was its network's own press releases about its own programming, which are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability, and a single wire service article, which is not enough coverage to get this over the bar all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source that can be found. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable company. GamerPro64 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:POET. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable coverage independent of her. Majority of the references cited in the article are about her mother's death. The accolades she's received are not notable. She has spoken at a TED conference and is the founder of a bunch of non-notable organizations. These things are not enough to justify stand-alone inclusion. The article is simply a promotional material written to promote the 23-year old individual. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A highly promotional article that lacks sources and in-depth coverage. He is only known for being the youngest person to run for President of Nigeria. The references cited in the article are either interviews or about the subject's presidential bid. Per WP:BIO1E, this article should be deleted. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2020 XFL season. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Championship game that was scheduled to happen but won't happen now, can easily merge material into 2020 XFL season. Not notable as a stand-alone article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, completely unsourced, written by “producer”. Kleuske ( talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, autobiographical, unsourced. Kleuske ( talk) 17:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, obvious WP:COI, far from neutral. Main purpose seems selfpromotion by the author. Kleuske ( talk) 17:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG no indication of notability whatsoever, can't see any in-depth coverage of him anywhere, just routine listings and primary sources. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable political party that sources exclusively to Instagram and google, has less than 25 members, has no elected officers, and seems to have no impact at all on anything. There does not appear to be any substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Doesn't look like any of their music has charted. Google search for "A1 Top Masta" comes up with fewer than 100 results, which appear to music directories or ticket vendors. A search for "顶级玩家" has many more results but still nothing approaching significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. (Note that 顶级玩家 apparently translates to "top players" so there are many irrelevant results in the Google search.) ... discospinster talk 13:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 05:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Smells of original research--no indication based on third-party coverage, or lack thereof, that this "fifth batch", nay the fourth, third, etc. should deserve their own pages. Little encyclopedic value, more like a vanity project for user:laohangzhou (no surprises given the name!) Kingoflettuce ( talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Gee, can't wait to see A Building at 19, Jin Chai Dai Alley and Buildings at 10, 12, 13, Zhupo Alley get its own article someday! Kingoflettuce ( talk) 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This started off as me helping an editor on Wikipedia "correct" some information on the article, but when I went to find some sources to back up even the most trivial information I hit a wall. 7 GNews hits and only a few tens of thousands of Google hits. Everything seems to be either a brief mention or promo for an upcoming film. Just not seeing the notability. Primefac ( talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It would appear Mr Rahman is a young musician from Bangladesh. This article fails any of the WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. While there appear to mentions of Zahid Rahman in Bengali language that might be considered as reliable sources, like or not, English language citations pretty much determine what is included on the English language Wikipedia. Maybe it shouldn't be? That's a discussion to made somewhere else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 11:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The article cites no non-primary sources. There is no indication that D&D warlords have any significance outside the game. Not a very active user ( talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of substantial secondary coverage that would indicate notability. Sourced using just IMDb for more than a decade. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Groner is mostly known as having been the secretary of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but notability is not inherited. The only reason for recent coverage is his death due to the coronavirus pandemic. Fails GNG and WP:SIGCOV on his own. — JFG talk 09:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Williamsdoritios ( talk) 05:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't find any independent and reliable coverage of this writer. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 1 housemates, the general consensus is that pretty much every contestant is non notable, contains an undue level of biographical profiling and fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Secondly, the amalgamated list, without all of the profiling, can be found under List of Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests or List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests and links to the very few notable names can be accessed from there. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related
TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Berthe Petit. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Self-publisher Lulu.com book. Fails WP:NBOOK, created by a vanished user who seems to mostly write from the Christian perspective. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Seriously questioning this meeting WP:GNG. Almost none of the sources are valid, most of the ones that aren't PR sites are guest posts/blogs by the subjects or people related to them. This also appears promotional as the claims aren't verifiable by 3rd party sources. Googling the people and their business names comes back to the same group of unreliable self created sources. JamesG5 ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The articles cited are about the webpage, not about her in particular. Google search for "Inky Gibbens" results in fewer than 100 results, with a lot of them being sketchy sites that link to her TEDx talk. ... discospinster talk 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This area does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 or WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Lakes Estates, California I am also nominating the following related pages because [Neighborhoods, census tracts, etc must pass WP:GEOLAND#2] the following areas do not meet our notability requirements:
The result was redirect to Shia–Sunni relations. Tone 19:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICTIONARY AtlasDuane ( talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
A search of newspapers.com did not reveal any coverage outside of the state of Nebraska and little within the state. Note that there are a lot of false positives related to the furniture company, Heywood-Wakefield Company, in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Raymie ( t • c) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Were there ever any references used for this article? How did it survive for this long? (I could find only refs for the company Raymie referenced and an Instagram personality.) JSFarman ( talk) 13:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Long overdue nomination of an unreferenced promotional page for a local bar band. Peacock text and COPYVIO that uses same verbiage from their promotional materials. Google returns run-of-the-mill appearance announcement, but no SIG COV. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 19:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Some of the "delete" arguments feel like borderline WP:JNN; I have discounted those. What matters is WP:GNG, which unfortunately wasn't quite written with academic topics in mind making it difficult to interpret. For example, what is a secondary source? What constitutes "independent"? The fact is that there is a lot of literature on this topic (plenty of it not by Kitaev), and I cannot make a determination as to whether they meet our requirements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 21 April 2020 (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}} . |
This article was written by a user with no other contributions who is a name match for Sergey Kitaev, the person who coined the term. The literature cited appears to be close to 100% of the published literature, and pretty much all of it is by him and his immediate collaborators. Google finds around 60 hits for the exact term. Google Scholar finds under 50, again with little or nothing outside Kitaev and his immediate collaborators. Every point of proof in the article that seeks to establish the existence, meaning or significance of the term, is a primary reference to Kitaev. Either this is a WP:NEOLOGISM, or it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Guy ( help!) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Not spam, but very new topic (mostly developed in the last five years) with limited literature as a result. It's not WP:FRINGE, but probably not mature or well-cited enough to be considered WP-notable as an article subject yet.Plus, almost none of the literature is independent of Kitaev in the sense that JzG mentions. Taku brings up that mathematical fields are niche, but there are varying degrees of niche-ness. In this case, it really does seem WP:TOOSOON. — MarkH21 talk 07:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
there are multiple papers on the subjectwould easily result in thousands of articles on really obscure topics, many of which would be incredibly WP:FRINGE. We definitely apply a higher standard than that, although this also meets a higher standard than that. — MarkH21 talk 12:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A few people have argued that there seems to be sufficient literature around this topic to justify its existence on wikipedia. However, this is a combination of three phenomena: 1) the catchall nature of combinatorics, which allows for a virtually infinite number of spinoffs from any topic, 2) pressure on researchers to publish, regardless of quality, and 3) lack of sufficient motive for referees to reject a paper based on its subject alone, given that other papers in the subject already exist. The combined effect of these factors makes it possible for a single researcher to begin with a combinatorial topic, write a few papers on it and publicize it, get co-authors to help, and eventually have other people writing and submitting these papers to journals, regardless of the quality of topic itself. This is what I perceive to have occurred in this case. I think we can agree that numbers alone (which in this case aren't impressive anyway) do not necessarily justify a topic, and in this situation I am confident they do not. There is another argument that like this field, mathematical fields are all niches. However, this particular area is so devoid of content that I do not even consider it mathematics to begin with. Even if you take a very specific subfield in mathematics, there are phenomena and problems in it which make you understand that it is real math; this even occurs in combinatorics which is generally considered as somewhat separate from the major structural pillars of math. It simply does not occur here. It is nothing but a random assortment of facts which have no meaning either individually or taken together. One can make as many empty citations to other papers in graph theory or semigroup theory, but that doesn't change the fact that if you take an honest, unbiased look at it, there is simply nothing here. If there was, it would have appeared within 15 years. Finally, I would like to address the argument that there are high caliber researchers working on this. This is already partially addressed by my first point. I will not dispute whether or not the people referenced are high caliber researchers. However, the nature of combinatorial research is twofold: researchers may publish very often, and sometimes they may work on a problem just because they want to, or a colleague mentions it. Thus, if a high caliber researcher in these fields spends time on a topic I deem uninteresting, I do not think any worse of the quality of that person's research. However, I do not think any better of that field itself. - Cyclicduck Cyclicduck ( talk) 00:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Cyclicduck ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Cyclicduck ( talk)
The result was keep. Merger can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
What makes Tolkien's troll notable enough for a stand-alone article? In the Tolkien Encyclopedia, they do not have a separate entry, just some mentions in passing here and there. They don't even get a dedicated paragraph in the entry on Monsters, where the book index suggests they should be discussed (page 433 if anyone cares to read it). All that entry says about them is a sentence or two about how the term is derived from Norse literature. Other than that, the article we have is pure WP:PLOT outside of the sentence or two based on concept art from the movie. I don't think this suffices, and BEFORE shows only fan PLOT-like discussions out there and likewise unreliable and trivial discussions of CGI from the movies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"In The Hobbit, trolls, orcs, and even the dragon operate simply within the fairy tale register. The trolls behave like the trolls of Scandinavian literature;"
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision with no independent notability. – dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable subdivision. – dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Has recurring roles in a few TV shows and a few movie credits, but not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable IT company that fails WP:NCORP. All the sources in the article are to their own website and nothing comes up in a search except for a few trivial sources. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Insufficient notability Hawol ( talk) 15:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I am the creator of this article and I now see that I was a bit too optimistic about its notability. This is a tiny field of Transpersonal Studies that has shown little or no development since its beginning. The field has produced a very small amount of literature, and there is hardly any new literature. The article is based mainly on primary references, only a few of the references are secondary. I did a thorough literature search and was not able to establish any more references for this article than the few references given. I propose that the article be deleted-- Hawol ( talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
2018-10 ✍️ create
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced, and content is a subset of what is already well covered by Number (sports). Recommend turn into a redirect to Number (sports). Dmoore5556 ( talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
As supported by source provided and topos, this is a railroad junction, not a community. Deprodder said "it appears to now be part of a suburb of Omaha, see the usual channel for merging this into the correct suburb" but there's nothing to merge. Again, this is a generic former railroad junction [22] [23] [24] not an unincorporated community as incorrectly claimed. Reywas92 Talk 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable defunct British company that made ladders. The article only has source that's a dead link about their closer and nothing comes in a Google search except for a Japanese company with the same name. So, it fails WP:NCORP. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In general, this kind of article can be expected to be structured similarly to Renewable energy in Afghanistan. It's supposed to be flat, plain, statistics about how much renewable energy a country generates, how much it could generate, and maybe a bit about the organizations that make it all happen.
This page is a substantial distance from seeing it get close to that. No other country page is styled "Green Economy in X," and none go into this level of detail about all the different initiatives a country is taking to support renewable energy. We need some WP:TNT here.
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
And this is where Wikipedia comes in: because when a country has a poor human rights record, it hurts investment. Reports appeared in 2012 that the Kazakh government was taking an active interest in Wikipedia, employing PR agencies to massage entries related to the country ( "Kazakhstan: Top-Notch PR Firms Help Brighten Astana's Image", "Tinkering with Wikipedia part of Kazakh government's PR strategy?").
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable company. The article only contains one source and nothing except trivial coverage comes up in a search. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable record label that was created by a single article editor. All the sources in the article trivial except for one. Which is an interview and therefore isn't a reliable source. Nothing comes up for them in a Google search to establish notability either. Adamant1 ( talk) 03:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. A summary of arguments comes down to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
After removing a lot of puffed-up, one-word mentions of the ocmpany used as sources, and after doing a search, I can only conclude that this is an WP:NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
One word mentions are not rrs" [25] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? Karieol51 ( talk) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision consisting of a few homes; no sign of a distinct community that would meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision lacks notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
None notable book publisher that fails notability standards for companies. All the coverage of them is trivial and nothing comes up in a Google Search that establishes notability. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Davidbmumford 18:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbmumford ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision stub mass-created from GNIS, fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision does not meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 03:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Hasn't seemed to have any sources since the article was created in 2006 and nothing comes in a search except for trivial coverage of them being bought out by another company. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources with quotes
|
---|
|
Author and journalist Colette Braeckman wrote in a French-language book published by Fayard (the translation is from the Zed Books book), "'AMF already had acquired an office to buy diamonds, and in Lubumbashi, the company demonstrated their generosity to the rebels, who benefited by an "advance" of 51 million dollars … to finance the war still being fought and to secure a date for transactions in the future."
In 1998, The Wall Street Journal called the company "perhaps the most assiduous of the foreign firms currently seeking deals in Zaire".
A 2006 article in The Daily Telegraph said that Adastra Minerals "own[ed] the world's largest cobalt and copper surface resource at Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo".
The company received substantial analysis in a 2007 Zed Books book: "Behind the dead stood the profits of regional powers and multinationals. The current phase of plunder was often initiated by relatively small groups of speculators, who crisscrossed the Congo as Kabila's army approached the capital in 1997. There is no better example of this group than American Mineral Fields. Though listed on various stock exchanges they were in reality little more than 'adventurers' who lacked sufficient capital to invest in the concessions that were sold to them by Kabila. They were what the Congo expert Colette Braeckman has described as 'juniors', the advance guard who sought the investment and interest of bigger players."
The company has received significant coverage in international sources in Canada, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom: Canadian Business, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, Finweek, Forbes, New African, and The Wall Street Journal.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
One of many subdivisions in and around Charlottesville. Fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision consisting of a single street, no sign of notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Subdivision with no sign of notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable apartment complex. – dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yet another Charlottesville subdivision. Fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Google Maps shows a "Rockbrook" neighborhood 1/4 mile Northeast of here; no sign of a distinct or notable community at either location. – dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Small subdivision fails GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Neighborhood or subdivision, no sign of independent notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Apartment complex with no sign of being an "unincorporated community" or meeting GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. GirthSummit (blether) 09:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Using google translate, it appears the references either make minor mentions, no mention, or are blogs. This is a self-promotion page created by the subject. v/r - T P 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried to find some independent and reliable references about this school, but failed to get any. Nominating it for deletion as a complete reference less article. Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. I am withdrawing this AfD, seeing that Pharaoh of the Wizards has provided enough resources and improved the article anyway. As he has stated, the title of the article is wrong, this be concerned. Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 02:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. czar 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Unable to find further sources. ~ riley ( talk) 01:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Unable to find further sources that are reliable. ~ riley ( talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit (blether) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. References provided are not reliable (and predominantly social media sites), and WP:BEFORE finds nothing substantive to build a WP:BLP. An essentially identical draft at Draft:Shakeel Bin Afzal was rejected, and this article appears to have been created to circumvent the process. Kinu t/ c 00:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence of any significant coverage to show any sort of notability. A quick Google search of the person’s name shows no reliable sources showing any real coverage. EsotericJoe ( talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The coverage I can find of this group is limited to the scope of the Sundering of the Elves. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of coverage of this term itself in secondary sources, most of what I can find uses Calaquendi incidentally in mentions of various things the Elves did. I don't have access to many secondary print sources about Tolkien's works, although David Day's Tolkien: An Illustrated Atlas, which I do have a copy of, does not seem to mention this. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if it turns out Tom Shippey or another major Tolkien scholar gave this coverage. However, I can't find the sort of coverage that would warrant a stand-alone article - it's all about the Sundering of the Elves. Again, if I'm missing something, willing to withdraw this. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This article went through an informal peer review process, as can be seen on its talk page, but the participants apparently did not notice that the article does not function as an encyclopedic topic. It is full of original research and presented in the form of a personal essay that devolves into a promotion for the organizations listed at the end, with no explanation of how particular ones were chosen. Coatracking is possibly an issue as well. All of these are reflected in the vague and unspecific title. Some of the research in the article could possibly be merged to various organization articles. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)