The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not a notable tribe per WP:GNG. Also couldn't find much during WP:BEFORE. Seems like a minor, non-notable sub-tribe. Might be appropriate to merge with Pashtuns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Another place only attested to as a post office, but everything implies that it was, well, a ranch where there was a 4th class post office. Mangoe ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This article feels unfocused. I'm not quite sure what the topic is supposed to be. ImTheIP ( talk) 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails policies on lists and original research Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails policies on lists, original research and raw data Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails policy on original research and lists. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NEO as a non notable neologism and concept Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable BLP - zero evidence of reliable, secondary sources that could indicate notability Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. I can't find any verifiable information besides the three sentences in the single source. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is messy, has little to no info, and has minimal references. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 18:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional references for four years and having only one reference. Aspects ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Questionable
notability. Also the article speaks more of the plasma TV technology than the subject (person) himself. Take note also of the insight by @
Dakarias: at its talk page way back 2015.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.)
02:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bill Myers. Sandstein 06:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I originally PRODded this article but a user contested, saying I should try merging or redirecting instead. After a few weeks of having a merger proposal up I decided there wasn’t actually any content worth merging, and am now in favor of deleting and redirecting to the page on the author. Dronebogus ( talk) 20:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Merge I looked at Contemporary Authors for Myers; none of the many listed reviews are for these books. That isn't to say they don't exist, but as there are so many books in the series, I'm not going go search them one by one at the major review sites. In terms of merging, retain titles with ISBNs (this section of the author's article is weak and having these entries would strengthen it a bit), the single reference to Billboard and info on the video/dvd series, perhaps the list of episodes. the character and cast info can go, though one could mention that Richard Thomas is in the series (John Boy's still kind of a big deal.) I'd also add a link to IMDb for the series if that exists. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Done referenced material and titles with ISBNs added to author’s article. Dronebogus ( talk) 15:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is completely a piece of Promotion, all the Rs which are there in the article are not at all about him, like the BILLBOARD and BBC rest all he have on his name is just the IMDB Dtt1 Talk 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 06:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
3 years ago the AfD was closed due to two votes, each clearly WP:GOOGLEHITS (I double checked as I thought it was 2007, but no, those votes came from 2017). Ok, let's try it again. I don't see any reliable reviews, just some user reviews and reviews at some minor sites which don't inspire confidence (remember, many reviews on the Internet are paid-for promos...). [1] is one of the 'best', and frankly, the only Englsh-language review that is more than few sentences/not clearly user written - but what makes Phonearena reliable? What makes anyone assume they don't take payments for their reviews? (And even if we conclude it is acceptable, we need more than one source for GNG). PS. Ping the nominator of the prior AfD User:Rædwald. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm holding my view on keeping this article.. [5] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything that indicates a WP:GNG pass. The two citations in the article are to a primary source fiction book in the series itself, and to a fansite that looks unreliable. A BEFORE search brings up fansites, blogs, wikis, sales sites, and other unreliable sources. I'm finding a lot of primary source books, and this does not appear to constitute significant coverage for this character. Previously PRODded by Piotrus and then deprodded by Andrew Davidson with a rationale that provides nothing helpful in determining notability. I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Inverted roller coaster. Sandstein 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There is already an article named Inverted roller coaster that covers the broad topic of this "type" of coaster. Information about the B&M model (Inverted Coaster) is already in that existing article where it belongs. There is a redirect for "Inverted Coaster" that points to that older article. Anything here in the new article would be unnecessary duplication, and on top of that, this article contains no sources. GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR scope_creep Talk 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as having no sources since 2018. Google scholar search gives no indication that the movement described exists outside of this article. Daask ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
These forms of Reconstructionism are unconnected to Christian Reconstructionism (aka Dominion Theology), which is an attempt to establish theocratic government, and to Progressive Reconstructionism, which is a movement bringing together Reconstructionist Jews, liberal Christians, and progressive adherents to other faiths. See also CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM.
— Chryssides, George D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Group has long been abandonded; no single article appropriate to redirect to. Kent G. Budge ( talk) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The Manzano Group is an abandoned stratigraphic group name. [6].The strata originally assigned to it have been reassigned to a number of geological formations and a currently accepted stratigraphic group, the Yeso Group. As an abandoned group name, it lacks notability. Such historical significance as it has is addressed in the "history of investigations" sections of some of the articles for the modern accepted formations and the Yeso Group. Since its beds have been assigned to so many currently accepted formations, there is no one article we can sensibly redirect to, or that would be preferable to deletion (and I would already have done it, frankly.) -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is a notable band. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Swedish heavy metal/hard rock band. I am doubtful of their notability. The article is sourced entirely to databases and social media pages which is never a good sign. I also did a Google search and couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites. ( Results on Google) They have released albums on notable, major labels (according to the article) so it's strange I haven't found any reliable source (well, aside from Metal Storm and Sputnikmusic at least). The Allmusic page is blank which makes it unreliable. There may be reliable sources in Swedish but I don't speak the language. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 12:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Weather Underground. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This may be a BLP. It is referenced to FBI investigation reports of J. Edgar Hoover era, which are of dubious reliability and do not establish notability. My search for reliable sources verify her involvement in SDS and the Weathermen, but they are trivial passing mentions. I was unable to find any significant coverage of her as a person rather than a name on a list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
the only thing really sourced only to the fbi is the fingerprint, when literally six out of seven references are to the somewhat obviously-titled "FBI Surveillance Files"...). Ultimately, this is still a BLP and as such it must be sourced to the highest quality third-party, independent reliable sources per WP:BLPSOURCES. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and BASIC for similar reasons. —— Serial 16:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
An autobiography which fails WP:GNG, Sufyan has only received passing mentions in the sources where he is covered. Sufyan could possibly be considered notable in the context of his arrest, but that would fail WP:BLP1E. W 42 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as having no sources since 2018. Google scholar search gives no indication that the movement described exists outside of this article. Daask ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
These forms of Reconstructionism are unconnected to Christian Reconstructionism (aka Dominion Theology), which is an attempt to establish theocratic government, and to Progressive Reconstructionism, which is a movement bringing together Reconstructionist Jews, liberal Christians, and progressive adherents to other faiths. See also CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM.
— Chryssides, George D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press.
The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The subject is an obscure Austrian archduchess, a second cousin of the last Austrian emperor. As there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources, the article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG notability guidelines. There is no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about her. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 11:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparent fail of at least
WP:V and apparently
WP:NAUTHOR and
WP:BASIC. I find this one very puzzling, since I was expecting it to be a slam dunk for notability. Her title—Chief of the Secretariat of the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues—seems impressive, but it is at least currently not accurate (see
[24]). Of the two sources for that claim in the article, the first (
[25]) does not seem especially reliable, and the second (
[26]) is a primary source on a now-dead website. Confirmed that she has served as the chief of the
Secretariat of the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
I think the best argument for notability is actually WP:NAUTHOR, since her book Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts has 100+ cites on Google Scholar. I was only able to find one review of it ( [27]), however. The articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing. It was created by a sock, but I don't think that's relevant for notability purposes. NB: Searching for "Rajkumari Chandra Roy" as opposed to the current article title was more fruitful for me.
The article was kept in 2014; automated process did not pick up the old link. It's sat in CAT:NN for six more years without a substantial change, so it probably deserves fresh consideration. Arguments at the old AfD relied mainly on WP:NPOL, which I'm also sympathetic to, but the sourcing on this BLP is still quite weak. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The subject is an obscure Austrian noblewoman who married into the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. She appears to have led a very private life as I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the topic does not pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Wikipedia should not have articles on people solely for the sake of genealogy; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)) and WP:DELREASON 14 (
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia). The only coverage I am able to find is genealogical meaning the subject does not meet the notability guidelines (genealogy is not WP:Significant coverage) and the article is pure genealogy which violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY (and based on the lack of sources this does not seem to be a fixable problem). TompaDompa ( talk) 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Difficult to research, but this amateur series does not appear to meet the standards of GNG. Same with its partner article, Scotland Possibles (which will join this afd momentarily). Onel5969 TT me 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles, since they are the companion articles to this one:
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved after being declined at AFC to main namespace
The references all fail WP:RS. The actress obviously has a fanbase, but this is just fancruft. She may have an article when her career allows it. WP:TOOSOON Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. This one is in between keep and redirect. I am closing as keep (as opposed to delete), but a merge can be discussed on the talkpage. There are several issues with the article, such as unreferenced sections. Tone 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I don't see anything that goes beyond a pure WP:PLOT-level summary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NSOLDIER as a sergeant (see
Sergeant#Canada), which is not a flag, general or air officer
. Fails
WP:NCRIME as merely a murder suspect without clear RS coverage. Fails GNG because there's nothing besides his military service and criminal allegations.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Subject of article is a politician & businessman but fails to satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. A before search mostly discusses a football club he owns & not him. Every article is notable by its own merit & not by proximity to a notable entity. I observed this source but that doesn’t do much for WP:GNG. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 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}} . |
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The references are, in the main, for a film, not the person. Two editors have separately redirected this to the film. The film seems to be notable. The director? I think he does not qualify, at least with these references.
It has been greatly expanded with film fan style references since I accepted it at AFC and not, I think, for the better. Some form of consensus is needed here Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable film Theroadislong ( talk) 10:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See SPI. I've also salted at sysop level due to repeated re-creation by sockpuppets. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable author and filmmaker. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:FILMMAKER. WP:GNG. Almost all the references are merely regurgitated press releases on various news aggregator platforms with no editorial insight or WP:SECONDARY coverage. Repeatedly created. Moved from draftspace by the author - I thought the title was salted? Presumed autobiographical. I expect this will be WP:SNOW. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
He doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. His collective works have a total 5 reviews on Amazon. He hasn't written more than 1 column each in notable business newspapers or magazines in India. Also the creator of the page had clear WP:COI conflict as he hasn't created or edited anything else. Roller26 ( talk) 09:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable artist. No indication that WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG are met. In terms of:
Otherwise, in honesty, that the article was created by a SPA account (with a username that implies COI), that the subject's website describes them as a "marketer and artist", and that the original incarnation was promotional in tone, all contribute to additional PROMO and COI concerns... Guliolopez ( talk) 09:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. This cinematographer has worked on a handful of films, and there are no independent, reliable sources about him. Only passing mentions exist. TamilMirchi ( talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Enough work done to show that the concept is relevant. A change of the title is possible. Tone 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This article fails WP:NEO about a non-notable buzzword. Its content is heavily WP:SYNTH and encompasses several related but distinct topics and reads more like a blog than an encyclopedia article. Unsure why it was approved for WP:AFC by User:DGG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
References
References
For other aspects of the concept of living within a small closed group to avoid infections, see:
(I am only aware of the US situation; and I've only listed what I happened to come across in reading;; I' haven't done a real search--there is presumably more elsewhere) ' With all the references that are in the article, I'm surprised this was even challenged; supplemented by those in this discussion, I'm even more surprised there's further question. I don't often invoke GNG explicitly, but I think it applies here. DGG' ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
...and another, CBC News, Why the idea of social bubbles might need to be re-evaluated [37] quote to show relevance : "The challenge to maintain an "exclusive" bubble will be particularly difficult with schools opening in the fall, " DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"
The result was keep. Tone 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Made-for-TV movie with 27% Rotten Tomatoes score; only ref is the RT page. Slashme ( talk) 08:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. To me, this just seems like an "it's notable!" "no it isn't!" "yes it is!" shouting match. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
No notable entries, fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 ( talk) 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.In my opinion the list fulfills the purposes of aiding reader's navigation, and providing information. Wm335td ( talk) 17:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational ...purposesWm335td ( talk) 19:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. There is a split between keep and delete, but I will go with a redirect to her father, where all the sourced information are already included (she was born, got married, had children). Other things are not sourced. Tone 10:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is merely a genealogical entry. While her husband and father are notable individuals, I do not see significant coverage of her in reliable sources. I am having difficulty finding out what she even does in her life; all I come across are genealogy websites. If I am missing significant coverage, please point it out. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This buzzword salad has been nothing but a faintly promotional pedagogical essay since it was written. Most of the sources it contains are deadlinks or useless red herrings, and my own searches have come up with nothing. Largely this is because the subject is so vague and obscured by buzzwords that it is legitimately impossible to tell if a possible source is about the same subject. In any case, even if this article was about anything at all (it's not) it would still be necessary to rewrite it from scratch since the current content is irreparably unencyclopedic. Reyk YO! 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
At first sight, this article appears to be well sourced. On closer inspection, though, this is not the case. There are no independent sources discussing the journal in depth, just some library indexes, which is rather trivial. Being a member of WAME and ICMJE is nothing contributing to notability either. Like any OA journal, it is listed in PubMed Central, but not in the more selective MEDLINE. The article claims that the journal is indexed by Scopus and the link provided does indeed show a few entries in this database. I'm not sure how this came about, because both a search on the ISSN or on the eISSN comes up empty. I'm not familiar with the "Dimensions website", but search on Google Scholar reveals only a handful of citations. Taken together this appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Maryhook97 ( talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
They said that this should appear in the next browser update of Scopus which is scheduled to happen end of September/October and we should be able to see the URL searchable for this journal. However, I managed to search 27 documents of this title in Scopus (issue 1-3 of 2020 by searching the title of paper or authors, separately). Furthermore, it seems that the title is indexed in Proquest however as Proquest products and services are accessible on a subscription basis, I am not sure how to offer a direct link to the content. I appreciate if you may clarify this. Moreover, The history of the journal and the former publisher(s) has been updated in Wikipedia. Maryhook97 ( talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge This is not a notable journal, but would make a fine section to International Virtual Ophthalmic Research Center. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Zombie Massacre (film). MBisanz talk 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does have issues (a few editors have conceded that) but the procedure itself is sound as a treatment for the condition. While it has issues as a how to guide at the moment, I feel the best option here is to list at afd for community input as see what the community wants to do with the page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Repeatedly recreated and speedy-deleted before, but this time a user is removing speedy tag persistently. BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest that he may have some small claim of notability, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. MBisanz talk 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This one lacks third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Entirely unsourced stub on a non-notable local history society. I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV— [46] (p. 54) is the best I could do, and it's a capsule description. I thought about doing a WP:NPROF analog, by checking to see if it's been cited as a publisher or conservator of notable historical materials and/or influential in the field of history more broadly. By my reckoning, it hasn't. 23 hits on Google Scholar; 16 hits at the Internet Archive. It has also published a few local history books in collaboration with Arcadia Publishing, which seems to publish (good!) local histories on any community in the U.S. with someone willing to write one. Created by a sock but evidently wasn't G5'd (though maybe it still qualifies?) AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to China-India relations. Tone 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. This consulate does not even exist. Only statements 5 years ago saying it would be established. LibStar ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm tagging this with deletion as a stand-in for all kings in Template:Gija Joseon monarchs except for Jizi, Bu, and Jun, which are kings attested in ancient Chinese sources. The articles in question are:
This should be all.
The issue is that virtually all these articles have only four primary sources as references. All primary sources amount to an identical genealogy which is quite literally a series of entries that only say "King XX, name Y. Ruled OO years." There is no mention about anything that these kings did, so that even a level of detail found in e.g. Rud Hud Hudibras is impossible. None of these kings have entered popular culture or such, so there is no avenue for expansion that way. In other words, these four-sentence Wikipedia articles say everything there is to say about these supposed kings; no further detail is possible.
More seriously, as the List of fictitious kings in Korean genealogies article now correctly states, all these supposedly Bronze and Iron Age kings are seventeenth-century fabrications. So I'm not really sure the current articles hold up to WP:NOTABILITY, when no expansion is possible and none of these kings are historical or even semi-historical. At least the Sumerian King List articles, if similarly terse, are genuinely from the Bronze Age.
If not deleted, the fact that these kings are fictitious at least needs to be mentioned in all these articles. Karaeng Matoaya ( talk) 04:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
all kings in Template:Gija Joseon monarchs except for Jizi, Bu, and Jun,is not enough, please list each article title here. SD0001 ( talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable as per Wikipedia's criteria. The references given are an interview with a blog (unnamed author), and being mentioned in listicles. Google search does not unearth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Unclear notability. The article and references are mainly about the company that he heads, and the info solely about him is basically a resume. ... discospinster talk 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article states it was "typical", which is saying not notable. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio 10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article meets WP:GNG and notability (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Miami. Salvio 10:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the context of The Real Housewives of Miami; the sole such source currently cited is [47], a local publication of dubious reliability. I would suggest that we redirect to that article. Searching online, I wasn't able to find coverage other than trivial pieces in tabloids, although given the nature of the subject it's possible that something more useful may have been crowded out in search results. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I did the best i can to find sources relating to Lea Black. I don't understand why the article Lea Black is about to be deleted? Tell me what do I have to do to improve this? Ceedub88 05:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
When you say "Independent" you mean websites with real sources that you trust, not the ones that are filled with fake information and fake sites with tabloids? Ceedub88 02:50, 21 August 2020 2020 (UTC)
So where could I find a reliable source that was written by her or her publicist? Perhaps maybe can we ask her herself? Ceedub88 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sources do not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Opinions of new editors are given little weight, due to their likely inexperience with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:FRINGEBLP of a probably non-notable subject. I just cut the WP:PROMO and unsourced material, but obviously feel free to revert partially or in full if you can verify the information. Tagged for notability for nine years. Analysis of sources below; don't think they combine to establish notability, and I couldn't find anything else.
attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability,
Review of select sources:
As for this individual conforming to the WP:GNG I believe the sources provided support this. Let me know your thoughts on my response? WikiBotEli ( talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiBotEli ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Mall has been closed for 30+ years but newspaper archive search for WP:BEFORE revealed advertising and WP:ROUTINE coverage of events. // Timothy :: talk 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, as much as I liked TtTE as a child, I just don't think this is notable. The Awdry books are primary sources, so they do not establish notability. The pegnsean.net linked to in the article looks self-published and unreliable. I'd say [69] is almost certainly unreliable. This book is compiled from Wikia content. The various blogs and wikis I'm finding aren't reliable either. All the books I'm finding are either primary sources or are compiled from Wikipedia/Wikia. I can't access this [70], although I'm assuming the Sodor Railway popping up in the preview is maybe this. However, one possible hit does not a WP:GNG pass make. As popular as TtTE is, frankly, I don't think any of the survivors in Category:Railways of Sodor are notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Salvio 10:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
2020-08 ✍️ create
The result was delete. Tone 08:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Lombard fails WP:NPOL as she is only a candidate and has not yet been elected to the House of Representatives. Additionally, much of the sigcov about her is related to the election, which is WP:BLP1E. There is no sigcov not related to the election that I could find. Java Hurricane 02:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems that sigcov is more than one event. this is Lombard's third run for office. news coverage extends for years.
Fordcat (
talk) 02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Lombard is the Democratic candidate for a US Congressional seat. seems like wp:gng
Fordcat (
talk)
02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
When the only source is the subject's own webpage we have a problem. A search for sources did not find any reliable sources that would lead to GNG coverage John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ureme (film series). A merge seems like an acceptable outcome here Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ureme (film series). MBisanz talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ureme (film series). MBisanz talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Full Life Christian Centre. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is about an auditorium in a christian centre, and the christian church article was created by the same User. Both articles are rather short, and the Noah's Ark Auditorium article could be included into the Full Life Christian Centre article. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not a notable tribe per WP:GNG. Also couldn't find much during WP:BEFORE. Seems like a minor, non-notable sub-tribe. Might be appropriate to merge with Pashtuns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Another place only attested to as a post office, but everything implies that it was, well, a ranch where there was a 4th class post office. Mangoe ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This article feels unfocused. I'm not quite sure what the topic is supposed to be. ImTheIP ( talk) 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails policies on lists and original research Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails policies on lists, original research and raw data Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails policy on original research and lists. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NEO as a non notable neologism and concept Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable BLP - zero evidence of reliable, secondary sources that could indicate notability Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. I can't find any verifiable information besides the three sentences in the single source. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is messy, has little to no info, and has minimal references. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 18:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional references for four years and having only one reference. Aspects ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Questionable
notability. Also the article speaks more of the plasma TV technology than the subject (person) himself. Take note also of the insight by @
Dakarias: at its talk page way back 2015.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.)
02:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bill Myers. Sandstein 06:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I originally PRODded this article but a user contested, saying I should try merging or redirecting instead. After a few weeks of having a merger proposal up I decided there wasn’t actually any content worth merging, and am now in favor of deleting and redirecting to the page on the author. Dronebogus ( talk) 20:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Merge I looked at Contemporary Authors for Myers; none of the many listed reviews are for these books. That isn't to say they don't exist, but as there are so many books in the series, I'm not going go search them one by one at the major review sites. In terms of merging, retain titles with ISBNs (this section of the author's article is weak and having these entries would strengthen it a bit), the single reference to Billboard and info on the video/dvd series, perhaps the list of episodes. the character and cast info can go, though one could mention that Richard Thomas is in the series (John Boy's still kind of a big deal.) I'd also add a link to IMDb for the series if that exists. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Done referenced material and titles with ISBNs added to author’s article. Dronebogus ( talk) 15:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is completely a piece of Promotion, all the Rs which are there in the article are not at all about him, like the BILLBOARD and BBC rest all he have on his name is just the IMDB Dtt1 Talk 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 06:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
3 years ago the AfD was closed due to two votes, each clearly WP:GOOGLEHITS (I double checked as I thought it was 2007, but no, those votes came from 2017). Ok, let's try it again. I don't see any reliable reviews, just some user reviews and reviews at some minor sites which don't inspire confidence (remember, many reviews on the Internet are paid-for promos...). [1] is one of the 'best', and frankly, the only Englsh-language review that is more than few sentences/not clearly user written - but what makes Phonearena reliable? What makes anyone assume they don't take payments for their reviews? (And even if we conclude it is acceptable, we need more than one source for GNG). PS. Ping the nominator of the prior AfD User:Rædwald. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm holding my view on keeping this article.. [5] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything that indicates a WP:GNG pass. The two citations in the article are to a primary source fiction book in the series itself, and to a fansite that looks unreliable. A BEFORE search brings up fansites, blogs, wikis, sales sites, and other unreliable sources. I'm finding a lot of primary source books, and this does not appear to constitute significant coverage for this character. Previously PRODded by Piotrus and then deprodded by Andrew Davidson with a rationale that provides nothing helpful in determining notability. I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Inverted roller coaster. Sandstein 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There is already an article named Inverted roller coaster that covers the broad topic of this "type" of coaster. Information about the B&M model (Inverted Coaster) is already in that existing article where it belongs. There is a redirect for "Inverted Coaster" that points to that older article. Anything here in the new article would be unnecessary duplication, and on top of that, this article contains no sources. GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR scope_creep Talk 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as having no sources since 2018. Google scholar search gives no indication that the movement described exists outside of this article. Daask ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
These forms of Reconstructionism are unconnected to Christian Reconstructionism (aka Dominion Theology), which is an attempt to establish theocratic government, and to Progressive Reconstructionism, which is a movement bringing together Reconstructionist Jews, liberal Christians, and progressive adherents to other faiths. See also CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM.
— Chryssides, George D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Group has long been abandonded; no single article appropriate to redirect to. Kent G. Budge ( talk) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The Manzano Group is an abandoned stratigraphic group name. [6].The strata originally assigned to it have been reassigned to a number of geological formations and a currently accepted stratigraphic group, the Yeso Group. As an abandoned group name, it lacks notability. Such historical significance as it has is addressed in the "history of investigations" sections of some of the articles for the modern accepted formations and the Yeso Group. Since its beds have been assigned to so many currently accepted formations, there is no one article we can sensibly redirect to, or that would be preferable to deletion (and I would already have done it, frankly.) -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is a notable band. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Swedish heavy metal/hard rock band. I am doubtful of their notability. The article is sourced entirely to databases and social media pages which is never a good sign. I also did a Google search and couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites. ( Results on Google) They have released albums on notable, major labels (according to the article) so it's strange I haven't found any reliable source (well, aside from Metal Storm and Sputnikmusic at least). The Allmusic page is blank which makes it unreliable. There may be reliable sources in Swedish but I don't speak the language. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 12:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Weather Underground. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This may be a BLP. It is referenced to FBI investigation reports of J. Edgar Hoover era, which are of dubious reliability and do not establish notability. My search for reliable sources verify her involvement in SDS and the Weathermen, but they are trivial passing mentions. I was unable to find any significant coverage of her as a person rather than a name on a list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
the only thing really sourced only to the fbi is the fingerprint, when literally six out of seven references are to the somewhat obviously-titled "FBI Surveillance Files"...). Ultimately, this is still a BLP and as such it must be sourced to the highest quality third-party, independent reliable sources per WP:BLPSOURCES. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and BASIC for similar reasons. —— Serial 16:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
An autobiography which fails WP:GNG, Sufyan has only received passing mentions in the sources where he is covered. Sufyan could possibly be considered notable in the context of his arrest, but that would fail WP:BLP1E. W 42 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as having no sources since 2018. Google scholar search gives no indication that the movement described exists outside of this article. Daask ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
These forms of Reconstructionism are unconnected to Christian Reconstructionism (aka Dominion Theology), which is an attempt to establish theocratic government, and to Progressive Reconstructionism, which is a movement bringing together Reconstructionist Jews, liberal Christians, and progressive adherents to other faiths. See also CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM.
— Chryssides, George D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press.
The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The subject is an obscure Austrian archduchess, a second cousin of the last Austrian emperor. As there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources, the article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG notability guidelines. There is no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about her. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 11:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparent fail of at least
WP:V and apparently
WP:NAUTHOR and
WP:BASIC. I find this one very puzzling, since I was expecting it to be a slam dunk for notability. Her title—Chief of the Secretariat of the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues—seems impressive, but it is at least currently not accurate (see
[24]). Of the two sources for that claim in the article, the first (
[25]) does not seem especially reliable, and the second (
[26]) is a primary source on a now-dead website. Confirmed that she has served as the chief of the
Secretariat of the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
I think the best argument for notability is actually WP:NAUTHOR, since her book Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts has 100+ cites on Google Scholar. I was only able to find one review of it ( [27]), however. The articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing. It was created by a sock, but I don't think that's relevant for notability purposes. NB: Searching for "Rajkumari Chandra Roy" as opposed to the current article title was more fruitful for me.
The article was kept in 2014; automated process did not pick up the old link. It's sat in CAT:NN for six more years without a substantial change, so it probably deserves fresh consideration. Arguments at the old AfD relied mainly on WP:NPOL, which I'm also sympathetic to, but the sourcing on this BLP is still quite weak. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The subject is an obscure Austrian noblewoman who married into the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. She appears to have led a very private life as I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the topic does not pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Wikipedia should not have articles on people solely for the sake of genealogy; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)) and WP:DELREASON 14 (
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia). The only coverage I am able to find is genealogical meaning the subject does not meet the notability guidelines (genealogy is not WP:Significant coverage) and the article is pure genealogy which violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY (and based on the lack of sources this does not seem to be a fixable problem). TompaDompa ( talk) 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Difficult to research, but this amateur series does not appear to meet the standards of GNG. Same with its partner article, Scotland Possibles (which will join this afd momentarily). Onel5969 TT me 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles, since they are the companion articles to this one:
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved after being declined at AFC to main namespace
The references all fail WP:RS. The actress obviously has a fanbase, but this is just fancruft. She may have an article when her career allows it. WP:TOOSOON Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. This one is in between keep and redirect. I am closing as keep (as opposed to delete), but a merge can be discussed on the talkpage. There are several issues with the article, such as unreferenced sections. Tone 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I don't see anything that goes beyond a pure WP:PLOT-level summary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NSOLDIER as a sergeant (see
Sergeant#Canada), which is not a flag, general or air officer
. Fails
WP:NCRIME as merely a murder suspect without clear RS coverage. Fails GNG because there's nothing besides his military service and criminal allegations.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Subject of article is a politician & businessman but fails to satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. A before search mostly discusses a football club he owns & not him. Every article is notable by its own merit & not by proximity to a notable entity. I observed this source but that doesn’t do much for WP:GNG. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 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}} . |
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The references are, in the main, for a film, not the person. Two editors have separately redirected this to the film. The film seems to be notable. The director? I think he does not qualify, at least with these references.
It has been greatly expanded with film fan style references since I accepted it at AFC and not, I think, for the better. Some form of consensus is needed here Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable film Theroadislong ( talk) 10:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See SPI. I've also salted at sysop level due to repeated re-creation by sockpuppets. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable author and filmmaker. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:FILMMAKER. WP:GNG. Almost all the references are merely regurgitated press releases on various news aggregator platforms with no editorial insight or WP:SECONDARY coverage. Repeatedly created. Moved from draftspace by the author - I thought the title was salted? Presumed autobiographical. I expect this will be WP:SNOW. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
He doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. His collective works have a total 5 reviews on Amazon. He hasn't written more than 1 column each in notable business newspapers or magazines in India. Also the creator of the page had clear WP:COI conflict as he hasn't created or edited anything else. Roller26 ( talk) 09:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable artist. No indication that WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG are met. In terms of:
Otherwise, in honesty, that the article was created by a SPA account (with a username that implies COI), that the subject's website describes them as a "marketer and artist", and that the original incarnation was promotional in tone, all contribute to additional PROMO and COI concerns... Guliolopez ( talk) 09:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. This cinematographer has worked on a handful of films, and there are no independent, reliable sources about him. Only passing mentions exist. TamilMirchi ( talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Enough work done to show that the concept is relevant. A change of the title is possible. Tone 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This article fails WP:NEO about a non-notable buzzword. Its content is heavily WP:SYNTH and encompasses several related but distinct topics and reads more like a blog than an encyclopedia article. Unsure why it was approved for WP:AFC by User:DGG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
References
References
For other aspects of the concept of living within a small closed group to avoid infections, see:
(I am only aware of the US situation; and I've only listed what I happened to come across in reading;; I' haven't done a real search--there is presumably more elsewhere) ' With all the references that are in the article, I'm surprised this was even challenged; supplemented by those in this discussion, I'm even more surprised there's further question. I don't often invoke GNG explicitly, but I think it applies here. DGG' ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
...and another, CBC News, Why the idea of social bubbles might need to be re-evaluated [37] quote to show relevance : "The challenge to maintain an "exclusive" bubble will be particularly difficult with schools opening in the fall, " DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"
The result was keep. Tone 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Made-for-TV movie with 27% Rotten Tomatoes score; only ref is the RT page. Slashme ( talk) 08:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. To me, this just seems like an "it's notable!" "no it isn't!" "yes it is!" shouting match. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
No notable entries, fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 ( talk) 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.In my opinion the list fulfills the purposes of aiding reader's navigation, and providing information. Wm335td ( talk) 17:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Lists that fulfill recognized informational ...purposesWm335td ( talk) 19:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. There is a split between keep and delete, but I will go with a redirect to her father, where all the sourced information are already included (she was born, got married, had children). Other things are not sourced. Tone 10:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is merely a genealogical entry. While her husband and father are notable individuals, I do not see significant coverage of her in reliable sources. I am having difficulty finding out what she even does in her life; all I come across are genealogy websites. If I am missing significant coverage, please point it out. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This buzzword salad has been nothing but a faintly promotional pedagogical essay since it was written. Most of the sources it contains are deadlinks or useless red herrings, and my own searches have come up with nothing. Largely this is because the subject is so vague and obscured by buzzwords that it is legitimately impossible to tell if a possible source is about the same subject. In any case, even if this article was about anything at all (it's not) it would still be necessary to rewrite it from scratch since the current content is irreparably unencyclopedic. Reyk YO! 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
At first sight, this article appears to be well sourced. On closer inspection, though, this is not the case. There are no independent sources discussing the journal in depth, just some library indexes, which is rather trivial. Being a member of WAME and ICMJE is nothing contributing to notability either. Like any OA journal, it is listed in PubMed Central, but not in the more selective MEDLINE. The article claims that the journal is indexed by Scopus and the link provided does indeed show a few entries in this database. I'm not sure how this came about, because both a search on the ISSN or on the eISSN comes up empty. I'm not familiar with the "Dimensions website", but search on Google Scholar reveals only a handful of citations. Taken together this appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Maryhook97 ( talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
They said that this should appear in the next browser update of Scopus which is scheduled to happen end of September/October and we should be able to see the URL searchable for this journal. However, I managed to search 27 documents of this title in Scopus (issue 1-3 of 2020 by searching the title of paper or authors, separately). Furthermore, it seems that the title is indexed in Proquest however as Proquest products and services are accessible on a subscription basis, I am not sure how to offer a direct link to the content. I appreciate if you may clarify this. Moreover, The history of the journal and the former publisher(s) has been updated in Wikipedia. Maryhook97 ( talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge This is not a notable journal, but would make a fine section to International Virtual Ophthalmic Research Center. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Zombie Massacre (film). MBisanz talk 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does have issues (a few editors have conceded that) but the procedure itself is sound as a treatment for the condition. While it has issues as a how to guide at the moment, I feel the best option here is to list at afd for community input as see what the community wants to do with the page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Repeatedly recreated and speedy-deleted before, but this time a user is removing speedy tag persistently. BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest that he may have some small claim of notability, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. MBisanz talk 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This one lacks third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Entirely unsourced stub on a non-notable local history society. I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV— [46] (p. 54) is the best I could do, and it's a capsule description. I thought about doing a WP:NPROF analog, by checking to see if it's been cited as a publisher or conservator of notable historical materials and/or influential in the field of history more broadly. By my reckoning, it hasn't. 23 hits on Google Scholar; 16 hits at the Internet Archive. It has also published a few local history books in collaboration with Arcadia Publishing, which seems to publish (good!) local histories on any community in the U.S. with someone willing to write one. Created by a sock but evidently wasn't G5'd (though maybe it still qualifies?) AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to China-India relations. Tone 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. This consulate does not even exist. Only statements 5 years ago saying it would be established. LibStar ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm tagging this with deletion as a stand-in for all kings in Template:Gija Joseon monarchs except for Jizi, Bu, and Jun, which are kings attested in ancient Chinese sources. The articles in question are:
This should be all.
The issue is that virtually all these articles have only four primary sources as references. All primary sources amount to an identical genealogy which is quite literally a series of entries that only say "King XX, name Y. Ruled OO years." There is no mention about anything that these kings did, so that even a level of detail found in e.g. Rud Hud Hudibras is impossible. None of these kings have entered popular culture or such, so there is no avenue for expansion that way. In other words, these four-sentence Wikipedia articles say everything there is to say about these supposed kings; no further detail is possible.
More seriously, as the List of fictitious kings in Korean genealogies article now correctly states, all these supposedly Bronze and Iron Age kings are seventeenth-century fabrications. So I'm not really sure the current articles hold up to WP:NOTABILITY, when no expansion is possible and none of these kings are historical or even semi-historical. At least the Sumerian King List articles, if similarly terse, are genuinely from the Bronze Age.
If not deleted, the fact that these kings are fictitious at least needs to be mentioned in all these articles. Karaeng Matoaya ( talk) 04:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
all kings in Template:Gija Joseon monarchs except for Jizi, Bu, and Jun,is not enough, please list each article title here. SD0001 ( talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable as per Wikipedia's criteria. The references given are an interview with a blog (unnamed author), and being mentioned in listicles. Google search does not unearth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Unclear notability. The article and references are mainly about the company that he heads, and the info solely about him is basically a resume. ... discospinster talk 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article states it was "typical", which is saying not notable. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio 10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article meets WP:GNG and notability (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Miami. Salvio 10:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the context of The Real Housewives of Miami; the sole such source currently cited is [47], a local publication of dubious reliability. I would suggest that we redirect to that article. Searching online, I wasn't able to find coverage other than trivial pieces in tabloids, although given the nature of the subject it's possible that something more useful may have been crowded out in search results. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I did the best i can to find sources relating to Lea Black. I don't understand why the article Lea Black is about to be deleted? Tell me what do I have to do to improve this? Ceedub88 05:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
When you say "Independent" you mean websites with real sources that you trust, not the ones that are filled with fake information and fake sites with tabloids? Ceedub88 02:50, 21 August 2020 2020 (UTC)
So where could I find a reliable source that was written by her or her publicist? Perhaps maybe can we ask her herself? Ceedub88 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sources do not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Opinions of new editors are given little weight, due to their likely inexperience with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:FRINGEBLP of a probably non-notable subject. I just cut the WP:PROMO and unsourced material, but obviously feel free to revert partially or in full if you can verify the information. Tagged for notability for nine years. Analysis of sources below; don't think they combine to establish notability, and I couldn't find anything else.
attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability,
Review of select sources:
As for this individual conforming to the WP:GNG I believe the sources provided support this. Let me know your thoughts on my response? WikiBotEli ( talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiBotEli ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Mall has been closed for 30+ years but newspaper archive search for WP:BEFORE revealed advertising and WP:ROUTINE coverage of events. // Timothy :: talk 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 08:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, as much as I liked TtTE as a child, I just don't think this is notable. The Awdry books are primary sources, so they do not establish notability. The pegnsean.net linked to in the article looks self-published and unreliable. I'd say [69] is almost certainly unreliable. This book is compiled from Wikia content. The various blogs and wikis I'm finding aren't reliable either. All the books I'm finding are either primary sources or are compiled from Wikipedia/Wikia. I can't access this [70], although I'm assuming the Sodor Railway popping up in the preview is maybe this. However, one possible hit does not a WP:GNG pass make. As popular as TtTE is, frankly, I don't think any of the survivors in Category:Railways of Sodor are notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Salvio 10:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
2020-08 ✍️ create
The result was delete. Tone 08:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Lombard fails WP:NPOL as she is only a candidate and has not yet been elected to the House of Representatives. Additionally, much of the sigcov about her is related to the election, which is WP:BLP1E. There is no sigcov not related to the election that I could find. Java Hurricane 02:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems that sigcov is more than one event. this is Lombard's third run for office. news coverage extends for years.
Fordcat (
talk) 02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Lombard is the Democratic candidate for a US Congressional seat. seems like wp:gng
Fordcat (
talk)
02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
When the only source is the subject's own webpage we have a problem. A search for sources did not find any reliable sources that would lead to GNG coverage John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ureme (film series). A merge seems like an acceptable outcome here Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ureme (film series). MBisanz talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ureme (film series). MBisanz talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Full Life Christian Centre. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is about an auditorium in a christian centre, and the christian church article was created by the same User. Both articles are rather short, and the Noah's Ark Auditorium article could be included into the Full Life Christian Centre article. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)