The result was keep. Per cleanup work by Toughpigs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced for 11 years. Should be either deleted or merged to former Disney attraction. p b p 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Server Sundaram (2020 film). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR. The only coverage available in English consists of softball interviews, routine casting announcements, and PR related to Server Sundaram. I wasn't able to find any coverage of the works written under the subject's pen name. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG , WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR .Did not have has had significant roles in any of the TV serials and was replaced in early in Santoshi Maa Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ENT. Of the references currently in the article, #1 is a fairly substantial profile by The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com), a website which features (a) wild conspiracy theorising on UFOs and aliens, 9/11 trutherism, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, autism, esoteric religions, politics, etc., and (b) articles on transgender issues, sexuality, and sex work. (Check out this archived front page, selected at random:
[3]) I am aware that reliability depends on context and that a source may be reliable for some topics and not others, but am inclined to think that the website as a whole lacks responsible editorial oversight. I've just realised that that profile is largely plagiarised from Wikipedia: compare
[4] (published in March 2007) with
the WP article in February 2007.
The other references are primary sources such as interviews, self-published content, databases, and award rosters; please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage and listicle blurbs. Cheers, gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Updated 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.Two notable porn industry awards makes the subject pass first requirement. One hall of fame induction from same notable organisation, and one "lifetime achievement" award from another notable awards makes the subject "sort of" pass the second requirement. I am not sure what non-porn industry award can be won by a pornstar, but certainly not Turing award. If one is expecting a noble or Turing for a pornstar, then yes, the subject fails notability. We absolutely shouldn't use WP:COMMONSENSE because the subject hasnt won Turing award. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Vaniitys' appearance is extremely feminine and even her voice is feminine(which is natural), She claims not to have had any femininity surgeries.was added to the WP article in 2006, and appears word-for-word in the 2007 AC article. Cheers, gnu 57 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to James Ferraro#Partial discography. In the absence of reliable sources, redirect is a sensible option. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
tried to redirect but was reverted. album isn't notable as a standalone, no coverage in reliable sources. fails WP:NALBUM and should be deleted and redirected. Bundling with others because they don't appear to be notable as a standalone. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This is of just as much importance as Clear is and both have enough sources to create a Stub-quality article. They are both of importance in the context of James Ferraro. Eggswowdamn ) talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRITE: provided sources are either primary (2, 3, 5, 6), trivial/routine (1, 7, 8, 11), or published in business publications of dubious reliability and independence (4, 9, 10, n.b. that 9 explicitly discloses that they were solicited by the subject to write the report, and thus decreases my willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to other borderline sources). Searching online turned up more of the same signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also
Site of a former ranch, can't find evidence either is or was a community or is notable. Linked sources not useful. McCarran does not even appear on topo maps, and Patrick may have been the name of the train siding at Patrick's ranch. [5] [6] Reywas92 Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Routine assault. WP:NOTNEWS. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to have a lasting effect - WP:LASTING. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Looks like there is now sufficient sourcing presented to support the keep votes. Fenix down ( talk) 09:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
non encyclopedic article about a football fan club. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was Move to draft. Even the "keep" opinions admit a significant rewrite is needed before this is ready for mainspace, what with gems of prose such as "Balaja Abdurrahmanov was a broad-based scientist. He was truly a legendary man, a great scientist, a personality and always stood his ground." As to notability there is no consensus at this time. Sandstein 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Something off here. Great and famous as he is made out here, does not pop on G-Books or Scholar. Inflated? Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources discussing the subject. Existing refs are a blog and another site that did not give anything on the subject. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
new neologism, no evidence "Tupocracy" is a notable or even real term and this is all original research. The few sources that even contain the word aren't reliable and the rest make no mention of "Tupocracy" Praxidicae ( talk) 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles and solid peacockery are addressable issues but I'm not convinced that this company meets WP:GNG. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This game does not appear to be notable. The article does not cite sources. In my search for sources, I found Wikipedia clones and products listings (eBay, Amazon, etc - and not all too many of them) but not independent reliable sources covering the game. Eostrix ( talk) 15:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG and ORG. Nothing in gnews for both English and Malay names. One would expect a museum that has been open for 9 years would get some coverage. LibStar ( talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Zero (art). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Google returns very little, GNews the same. Some small articles about the organization, like this, but I don't think there's notability even if Robert Rauschenberg used their place as a workspace. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as promotional copyvio. ( non-admin closure) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not turning anything up on GNews; Google itself returns some links to their site and Vimeo channel. That's it. Doesn't pass WP:GNG/ WP:NORG Mr. Vernon ( talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Community consensus has now shifted against including "dumping ground" collection articles of in-universe descriptions of non-notable fictional elements from notable franchises. This AfD is one of many to illustrate this. Because of the concerns expressed, I'm not at this time unlinking backlinks or deleting redirects, so people who care can find another franchise-related article to redirect these search terms to. Sandstein 20:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This list no longer has any utility. The series previously had somewhere between 600-1000 character articles. It now has 20. There are also around 20 character lists, so this is not a necessary navigational list. Autobot can hold a small list of blue links if that's actually necessary. This is just a barebones list of names, and even that is useless because most of these characters have two to three different versions due to most of these series being completely different continuities only sharing some core character concepts. Due to that, this cannot function as a proper navigational hub without being even more of a mess than its current incarnation. TTN ( talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
First let me say that I don't think this list is truly necessary. However, my reservations on deleting it are rooted in a pretty big overall procedural concern, and not one regarding the content (or potential content) of the list.
Checking the Talk page, at least 11 articles have gone to AfD and there was consensus to merge them into this list. I presume that there were also some that ended in a "Redirect" consensus as well, but I am not going to dig into that information to search for a number. Let's just go with "11+". 11+ articles were discussed through AfD alone, and the consensus among those discussions was that those particular articles did not merit a standalone article, but they were notable enough that outright deletion was not an acceptable solution, so a merge was to be done. I understand that WP:CCC, but I believe that would apply more to follow-on AfD nominations for specific articles. For a scenario such as this, we should at least WP:PRESERVE the data until a point at which someone can safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE. In my mind, it is VERY IMPORTANT to proceed carefully to reach that point. If this list is deleted, all of those Merge and Redirect articles are going to be automatically deleted along with this list via WP:G8. That is unacceptable. With the preserved data of those articles gone, a new target cannot be established easily. What is the point of Wikipedia operating on consensus-based policies if it cannot uphold the consensus?
In order to safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE I think at least those 11 articles should be evaluated for a suitable new merge location and retargeted before this list is deleted, or they can all go to RfD to get a new consensus there before this list is deleted. Ideally, that would really be done for all the AfD's that resulted in a Redirect, but that may be a little much to overcome. Regards, 2pou ( talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't pass notability as nothing comes up in Google for it and the sources in the article are all trivial coverage. Also, edited by a single article editor. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Recreated expired PROD from 2006, hasn't improved since, seems to fail NFICTION/GNG. Ping User:JaneciaTaylor who endorsed the prod before. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Wildcats (comics). RL0919 ( talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. The de-PROD only added primary sources. TTN ( talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. The previous AfDs seemed to hinge on the usage of D&D inspiration in other similar games, but that rationale seems lacking. TTN ( talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet GNG guidelines. The only sources are primary and have to do with their products and everything in Google search seems to be trivial. Plus, the page is essentially just a list of their products and really nothing else. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Totally not notable company. It was only around for a few years and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there to give it in-depth coverage. Also, the paragraph in the article is directly copied from the article on it's former CEO and the main editor of it was probably paid. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Article doesn't meet GNG and fails NCORP. What is out there is just stock price changes or press releases. Plus, it was created and mainly edited by a single user that only edits things related to the company or its CEO. So it's clearly meant for promotional purposes. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. It is essentially a lot of original research, with no sources or references. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSONG - all references just chart listings, can't find any significant coverage. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Undersourced company profile created by COI editor. Ref#1 is a simple listing, #2 is an interview-based advertorial, #3 is a passing mention and #4 is a promotional YouTube video. None of these sources establish notability, a Google search revealed no other promising in-depth sources (news coverage consists of press releases, interviews and other PR activities) - no evidence that this company meets our notabilty guidelines. Note: I have removed some other links that were equally unsuitable for encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe ( talk) 10:37, 20 February 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. RL0919 ( talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The article fails WP:NFILM and lacks significant mentions in reliable sources. Completely unsourced and WP:OR. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It has been tagged as autobiography and primary sources, since October 2019. On the Talk Kstone999 said "It looks like a WP:BLP1E case of WP:LOWPROFILE and appears as a WP:RESUME that simply outlines his professional history without any significant coverage" It was edited a lot by Caliwing, aka Indidea, confirmed promotional sockpuppets. ( Sockpuppet Investigations) Most sources are either self-published, primary (indidea.org, and e.foundation), about a few projects he was involved with, interviews of other people, short mentions (e.g. of his firing from Mandriva), or not reliable (i.e. TGDaily). I note that sock and meat puppetry was a concern at [9] where both Caliwing and Indidea participated, and may be expected here. Yae4 ( talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
"Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this."— Newslinger talk 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Possibly a notable topic, but not very useful in its current form. The title may be more suited to a disambiguation page. – bradv 🍁 05:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Page copies Japanese idol and Korean idol; these articles already exist in respect to their own countries, so this seems like a duplicate article. lullabying ( talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Characters in a WP:MILL anime series that is "based on dinosaurs and explosions". Almost entirely unsourced, except for a bit of trivia which could also be added to the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT. No indication that these characters as a group, or any of them (as opposed to their anime series) have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources, though. At any rate, the natural habitat for such fancruft are fan wikis. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Borderline notable?You kidding me? Super Sentai lasted for decades and their annual sales are billions of yen. ミラ P 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sourcessays it all: our latest Signpost report states that,
There have been many articles on notable topics deleted here simply because we didn't have access to the sources in Japan. The deletion process here is extremely biased against non-English sources and topics. If it hasn't been discussed in an English-language source, there are a fair number of editors who have to be reminded that sources are not required to be in English, and that it is much more difficult to get sources from a country where there has been less effort at getting older sources online. It's live-action, not anime, and explosions are routine in the franchise. ミラ P 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Nothing turned up in an internet search and a Rock's Backpages search. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Iyamu doesn't appear to be notable under his stage name or real name. The sources are largely puff pieces and otherwise unreliable (especially those that I removed, which are part of a black hat SEO spam group and entirely fake.)
None of the remaining sources are in depth coverage, they're interviews or pieces unattributed to any actual editor from those papers. A search reveals more of the aforementioned "fake" news sites ( like this one, who's editorial staff are stock images and famous people's photos) or press releases and interviews and his 4 self published books do nothing to establish notability. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep: I randomly came across this while curating articles on Edo history and just had to comment. I do not know what Praxidicae is talking about when he says fake sources and unsourced. WP:BLP and WP:V are very clearly satisfied here, with Thompson Iyamu being featured in multiple major Nigerian newspapers. Ask any Nigerian about these newspapers and he or she can confirm that these are major legitimate newspapers which everyone in Nigeria knows about. In Nigeria, they are the equivalents of The New York Post and The Telegraph. One of them is in fact almost 100 years old. These Nigerian newspapers are all covered on Wikipedia.
These are reliable sources that have dedicated entire articles for featuring Thompson Iyamu.
Here is the template of major Nigerian newspapers in case you are still not convinced:
So let me clarify a few more things. I was browsing and editing through many articles of Edo history and prominent Edo people when I suddenly came upon this article by chance. I don't know who wrote this and how this all started, but as a Nigerian of Edo heritage who actually knows about Edo (Benin) society, I just have to point out that any Nigerian will be able to tell you that this article should clearly not be deleted. Besides being known from his music career in the UK, Thompson Iyamu is from the prominent Akenzua family of Southern Nigeria, which is a historicaly important family that Nigerians from that area all know about.
We all know too well that the blatant systematic bias on Wikipedia ( WP:WORLDVIEW) allows for topics in developed countries to thrive on Wikipedia, while African topics are not only underrepresented, but also often unfairly treated and purged due to all sorts of arbitrarily interpreted policies that often do not fit well into the African context. While Royal British and Scandinavian family members with notable careers in the arts have a very easy time, the fact that African royal family members with notable careers in the arts are harassed like this points to a deep systematic bias that the Wikipedia community seriously needs to address.
Have you ever wondered why the current members of the British royal family are not being similarly harassed on Wikipedia? Because of WP:BIAS. The Wikipedia community at large is predominantly non-African and has very little knowledge of how to properly select and curate encyclopedia articles that would be useful to Africans. Every month, notable Africans who have made invaluable contributions to society are deleted, while fake pastors, fraudulent businessmen and corrupt politicians of no obvious notability are allowed to thrive.
And royal family member or not, this is a musician and actor who clearly belongs in an online reference work, like Thompson's relative Peju Layiwola, also of the well-known Akenzua family. Touring with Weird MC, appearing in many notable films, and other films, he is also notable abroad. Back home, any Nigerian you meet in Benin City will tell you that this person is clearly not a nobody who should not be on an encyclopedia.
If there are any inadequecies, I will volunteer my time to improve the article's content and citations.
I am only giving my honest opinion here. I hope you will all think twice before saying that this article deserves to be deleted.
So keep this my brothers. Let's contribute to the encyclopedia, build our community and help the world with free, useful knowledge. Graygraphiticus ( talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
No evidence this fictional character passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors don't agree as to whether the sources identified meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This article about a mixed-use development fails WP:NGEO. Many of the references read like press releases and therefore, in my opinion, they should not be considered independent of the subject. Also, many of the sources are from before the development was fully constructed, which calls into question its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance according to WP:NBUILD. Bait30 Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable child actor. But no reliable sources were found. Ni3Xposite ( talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Promotional and borderline non-notable The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion
With respect to notability , most of the references are either articles about the general problem, or essentially press releases, or mere notices. . The NYT article mention this firm among others, as does CNN & the WSJ--they do not amount to significant coverage. The Forbes article is by a "contributor"--a press release they taken o responsibility for. The awards are minor, and not of general significance. As for promotionalism : most of the article is advocacy about the need for an organization such as this one, all throughout the article, & particularly in section 2. The article gives promotional features of the company's plan, addressed only to prospective users, ( " all employees are eligible from day one") It's written in a manner appropriate to a web page, ("financial wellness" ; "responsible and sustainable man". The company name is used over 20 times in the short article. .
Normally on seeing such an article I'd move it into draft space. But it already was in draft space, and the author moved it into main space themself, thus defeating the the purpose of having the article reviewed. I should note that the ed. is not usually a promotional editor, but works competently on reasonable subjects in the field of entertainment; I cannot account for this exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedural nomination to stop editors from edit warring over whether it should be in draft space. The sources in the article are nowhere near WP:GNG. It doesn't look like there's any coverage in English, and I was able to find some trivial coverage in Japanese. I wasn't able to search in Lithuanian, which is another language that may have coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Software Technology Parks of India. MBisanz talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
All available coverage covers Rai in the context of, and generally as a spokesman for, Software Technology Parks of India. I don't think that GNG has been met. Thus, I think that redirect to Software Technology Parks of India is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
RufinaSmith ( talk) 07:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Forrest, Arizona. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There used to an industrial spur from Forrest, Arizona to this place, but in spite of an array of black squares on old enough topos which look like a town, aerials show that this was always and only some sort of industrial concern (a lime plant, various references tell me), and not a settlement. There is some reference to the place in historic discussion of the rail line (the plant was the last customer on the line) but I'm not seeing that as giving notability. Mangoe ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There is only one source in the article. The source is not enough for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
-- WikiAviator ( talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Redirect seems the obvious consensus, but whether to redirect to the company or the individual is a bit more problematic. I judge consensus to be to the company, but this could be further discussed and the redirect modified if necessary. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Article on a company is sourced to Wikipedia itself, the company's own website, a defunct page called "guardiansorder.com", and a marignally RS book. A BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Yet neither sources published by an article's subject, nor sources covered by PRIMARY, count towards Notability for purposes of Keep or Delete !votes at AfD. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Another non-settlement in Cochise Co., AZ, it was actually... an orchard. Really. It is marked as such on older topos, and aerial views still show traces of crop rows. All the buildings here go with the orchard, and a basic search gives a ton of geoclickbait and nothing of substance. Mangoe ( talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Promotional article by an IP editor on a for-profit corporation is sourced to a single reference, which is purely incidental in nature. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any WP:RS. Chetsford ( talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, there seem to be sour grapes in the nomination, since the terms "promotional" and "incidental" are used by the Nom even though neither term actually applies to this article. The nominator has also misapplied SIGCOV in the above comment, which is below the standard I expect from an Admin, even a relatively "green" one. Perhaps they could strive for more accurate presentation in future. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 3. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per procedural keep arguments. MBisanz talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Next stop on the tour of Arizona non-places is this siding. Yes, that's all it is: a siding on a rail line which was abandoned sometime in the 1980s, if one believes the topos. GMaps actually has a good clue: the remains of a pond a bit to the east which it labels "Chiricahua Siding Tank", presumably to supply water back in the steam era. It's obvious there was never a settlement here. Mangoe ( talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following pseudo-settlements in Cochise County, Arizona which also represent former sidings on rail lines:
Mangoe ( talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Apache Powder Company. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Another GNIS-hallucinated "populated place", it's actually a "station" (in this case, a small yard just south of an industrial lead) outside St. David, Arizona which has plainly never been a settlement. As a rule we haven't considered these spots-on-the-railroad to be notable. Mangoe ( talk) 03:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Analog Horror
Doesn't pass WP:GNG because it doesn't show how Robert V. Bartlett is notable. He just seems like an average school teacher who doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. -- Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No citations beyond the personal web site of the individual the article references. On first glance the article appears to be a cited piece with links to dozens of other wiki topics but there are no citations or references to show notability other than a personal web site. The subject does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is nothing more than a PR page with nothing to back it up. Jimmydanglewood ( talk) 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There’s a lot of detail in this article but a search for sources does not show sustained coverage and this is possibly an attack page. Anyway the notability of the subject is doubtful. Mccapra ( talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article creator is determined to have this article in mainspace, in spite of the existence of a draft here and an attempt to redirect. I'm guessing a PROD would be removed. However, it's entirely unsourced, and no reliable sources are on Google. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ ping}} me after replying off my talk page 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a topic should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included.Only because this TV series was nationally braodcast, doesnt make it automatically notable. Coverage in one reliable source is not significant coverage. We also have to consider current persistent attempts of production companies from India to create wikipedia articles of their TV shows, and actors; during the publicity/marketing campaigns. As per WP:COMMONSENSE, PR, paid news/reviews, WP:ROUTINE coverage is bound to take place. At least 2-3 reviews (not capsule reviews), and/or significant coverage is required for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 10:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY Sulfurboy ( talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails to meet GNG as well as WP:ARTIST Less Unless ( talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails GNG as well as WP:SINGER Less Unless ( talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I came across this article when reverting vandalism. Looking at it after my revert, I noticed that it was outrageously promotional, and started trimming - it quickly became apparent that there was no content that wasn't supported by either a press release republished in the local press, a Google search, or a dependent source. Checking for sources online, I could find nothing to indicate that this entity would pass WP:NCORP; therefore, delete. GirthSummit (blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Related to Missionary position. Störm (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Non notable person. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete - even if he could be verified, he was run of the mill - a judge in one smallish city. Bearian ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary dab page, we can add a hatnote to the Coat of arms article if determined necessary. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Cites no refs, I couldn't unearth much more with a preliminary WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Yunshui 雲 水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This film is under sourced and not notable. This page was created for a film that has highly negative reviews and has been mocked by other films. DragoMynaa ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Yunshui 雲 水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. – sgeureka t• c 08:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any in-depth discussion or analysis of this character, the article is pure WP:PLOT and in the linked sources (those that I can access) nor in my general BEFORE, as I said, I am not seeing anything useful, through the search here is made pretty difficult due to the character's super generic name. Can anyone find any sources that discuss this character in depth and beyond pure plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
* Merge and Redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) per WP's core content policy, PRESERVE. And the article concerns a BOOK, not a "commercial product", for those keeping score at home. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements. There were some sources found, but it's questionable whether most of them are WP:RS. The redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, complies with WP:ATD, and preserves the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sulfurboy ( talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPROF Sulfurboy ( talk) 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
as per my prod: this is nothing more than original research, TR isn't an institute, it's a research group and all the sources that even make mention of it are just bylines by the authors, which are self published by the page creator. The rest of the sources make no mention of "turing Research" Praxidicae ( talk) 01:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Academics WP:ACADEMIC WP:PROFESSOR Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "Notability requirements for people based on academic achievements" fbatarse
This blog post expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.and it was clearly by someone with a name remarkably similar to your username. Linkedin is irrelevant, as is the rest. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
fbatarse ( talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Provided sources are softball interviews and/or less-than-reliable blog posts. Searching for sources online, I found nothing, even when searching for Dominican newspapers and Latin American pop culture publications. N.b. that according to the article, Santos has released one single, with no mention of other recordings or performances. The article has also been primarily edited by editors that appear to have COIs. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per cleanup work by Toughpigs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced for 11 years. Should be either deleted or merged to former Disney attraction. p b p 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Server Sundaram (2020 film). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR. The only coverage available in English consists of softball interviews, routine casting announcements, and PR related to Server Sundaram. I wasn't able to find any coverage of the works written under the subject's pen name. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG , WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR .Did not have has had significant roles in any of the TV serials and was replaced in early in Santoshi Maa Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ENT. Of the references currently in the article, #1 is a fairly substantial profile by The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com), a website which features (a) wild conspiracy theorising on UFOs and aliens, 9/11 trutherism, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, autism, esoteric religions, politics, etc., and (b) articles on transgender issues, sexuality, and sex work. (Check out this archived front page, selected at random:
[3]) I am aware that reliability depends on context and that a source may be reliable for some topics and not others, but am inclined to think that the website as a whole lacks responsible editorial oversight. I've just realised that that profile is largely plagiarised from Wikipedia: compare
[4] (published in March 2007) with
the WP article in February 2007.
The other references are primary sources such as interviews, self-published content, databases, and award rosters; please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage and listicle blurbs. Cheers, gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Updated 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.Two notable porn industry awards makes the subject pass first requirement. One hall of fame induction from same notable organisation, and one "lifetime achievement" award from another notable awards makes the subject "sort of" pass the second requirement. I am not sure what non-porn industry award can be won by a pornstar, but certainly not Turing award. If one is expecting a noble or Turing for a pornstar, then yes, the subject fails notability. We absolutely shouldn't use WP:COMMONSENSE because the subject hasnt won Turing award. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Vaniitys' appearance is extremely feminine and even her voice is feminine(which is natural), She claims not to have had any femininity surgeries.was added to the WP article in 2006, and appears word-for-word in the 2007 AC article. Cheers, gnu 57 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to James Ferraro#Partial discography. In the absence of reliable sources, redirect is a sensible option. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
tried to redirect but was reverted. album isn't notable as a standalone, no coverage in reliable sources. fails WP:NALBUM and should be deleted and redirected. Bundling with others because they don't appear to be notable as a standalone. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This is of just as much importance as Clear is and both have enough sources to create a Stub-quality article. They are both of importance in the context of James Ferraro. Eggswowdamn ) talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRITE: provided sources are either primary (2, 3, 5, 6), trivial/routine (1, 7, 8, 11), or published in business publications of dubious reliability and independence (4, 9, 10, n.b. that 9 explicitly discloses that they were solicited by the subject to write the report, and thus decreases my willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to other borderline sources). Searching online turned up more of the same signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also
Site of a former ranch, can't find evidence either is or was a community or is notable. Linked sources not useful. McCarran does not even appear on topo maps, and Patrick may have been the name of the train siding at Patrick's ranch. [5] [6] Reywas92 Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Routine assault. WP:NOTNEWS. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to have a lasting effect - WP:LASTING. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Looks like there is now sufficient sourcing presented to support the keep votes. Fenix down ( talk) 09:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
non encyclopedic article about a football fan club. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was Move to draft. Even the "keep" opinions admit a significant rewrite is needed before this is ready for mainspace, what with gems of prose such as "Balaja Abdurrahmanov was a broad-based scientist. He was truly a legendary man, a great scientist, a personality and always stood his ground." As to notability there is no consensus at this time. Sandstein 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Something off here. Great and famous as he is made out here, does not pop on G-Books or Scholar. Inflated? Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources discussing the subject. Existing refs are a blog and another site that did not give anything on the subject. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
new neologism, no evidence "Tupocracy" is a notable or even real term and this is all original research. The few sources that even contain the word aren't reliable and the rest make no mention of "Tupocracy" Praxidicae ( talk) 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles and solid peacockery are addressable issues but I'm not convinced that this company meets WP:GNG. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This game does not appear to be notable. The article does not cite sources. In my search for sources, I found Wikipedia clones and products listings (eBay, Amazon, etc - and not all too many of them) but not independent reliable sources covering the game. Eostrix ( talk) 15:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG and ORG. Nothing in gnews for both English and Malay names. One would expect a museum that has been open for 9 years would get some coverage. LibStar ( talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Zero (art). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Google returns very little, GNews the same. Some small articles about the organization, like this, but I don't think there's notability even if Robert Rauschenberg used their place as a workspace. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as promotional copyvio. ( non-admin closure) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not turning anything up on GNews; Google itself returns some links to their site and Vimeo channel. That's it. Doesn't pass WP:GNG/ WP:NORG Mr. Vernon ( talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Community consensus has now shifted against including "dumping ground" collection articles of in-universe descriptions of non-notable fictional elements from notable franchises. This AfD is one of many to illustrate this. Because of the concerns expressed, I'm not at this time unlinking backlinks or deleting redirects, so people who care can find another franchise-related article to redirect these search terms to. Sandstein 20:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This list no longer has any utility. The series previously had somewhere between 600-1000 character articles. It now has 20. There are also around 20 character lists, so this is not a necessary navigational list. Autobot can hold a small list of blue links if that's actually necessary. This is just a barebones list of names, and even that is useless because most of these characters have two to three different versions due to most of these series being completely different continuities only sharing some core character concepts. Due to that, this cannot function as a proper navigational hub without being even more of a mess than its current incarnation. TTN ( talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
First let me say that I don't think this list is truly necessary. However, my reservations on deleting it are rooted in a pretty big overall procedural concern, and not one regarding the content (or potential content) of the list.
Checking the Talk page, at least 11 articles have gone to AfD and there was consensus to merge them into this list. I presume that there were also some that ended in a "Redirect" consensus as well, but I am not going to dig into that information to search for a number. Let's just go with "11+". 11+ articles were discussed through AfD alone, and the consensus among those discussions was that those particular articles did not merit a standalone article, but they were notable enough that outright deletion was not an acceptable solution, so a merge was to be done. I understand that WP:CCC, but I believe that would apply more to follow-on AfD nominations for specific articles. For a scenario such as this, we should at least WP:PRESERVE the data until a point at which someone can safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE. In my mind, it is VERY IMPORTANT to proceed carefully to reach that point. If this list is deleted, all of those Merge and Redirect articles are going to be automatically deleted along with this list via WP:G8. That is unacceptable. With the preserved data of those articles gone, a new target cannot be established easily. What is the point of Wikipedia operating on consensus-based policies if it cannot uphold the consensus?
In order to safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE I think at least those 11 articles should be evaluated for a suitable new merge location and retargeted before this list is deleted, or they can all go to RfD to get a new consensus there before this list is deleted. Ideally, that would really be done for all the AfD's that resulted in a Redirect, but that may be a little much to overcome. Regards, 2pou ( talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't pass notability as nothing comes up in Google for it and the sources in the article are all trivial coverage. Also, edited by a single article editor. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Recreated expired PROD from 2006, hasn't improved since, seems to fail NFICTION/GNG. Ping User:JaneciaTaylor who endorsed the prod before. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Wildcats (comics). RL0919 ( talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. The de-PROD only added primary sources. TTN ( talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. The previous AfDs seemed to hinge on the usage of D&D inspiration in other similar games, but that rationale seems lacking. TTN ( talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet GNG guidelines. The only sources are primary and have to do with their products and everything in Google search seems to be trivial. Plus, the page is essentially just a list of their products and really nothing else. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Totally not notable company. It was only around for a few years and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there to give it in-depth coverage. Also, the paragraph in the article is directly copied from the article on it's former CEO and the main editor of it was probably paid. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Article doesn't meet GNG and fails NCORP. What is out there is just stock price changes or press releases. Plus, it was created and mainly edited by a single user that only edits things related to the company or its CEO. So it's clearly meant for promotional purposes. Adamant1 ( talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. It is essentially a lot of original research, with no sources or references. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSONG - all references just chart listings, can't find any significant coverage. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Undersourced company profile created by COI editor. Ref#1 is a simple listing, #2 is an interview-based advertorial, #3 is a passing mention and #4 is a promotional YouTube video. None of these sources establish notability, a Google search revealed no other promising in-depth sources (news coverage consists of press releases, interviews and other PR activities) - no evidence that this company meets our notabilty guidelines. Note: I have removed some other links that were equally unsuitable for encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe ( talk) 10:37, 20 February 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. RL0919 ( talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The article fails WP:NFILM and lacks significant mentions in reliable sources. Completely unsourced and WP:OR. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It has been tagged as autobiography and primary sources, since October 2019. On the Talk Kstone999 said "It looks like a WP:BLP1E case of WP:LOWPROFILE and appears as a WP:RESUME that simply outlines his professional history without any significant coverage" It was edited a lot by Caliwing, aka Indidea, confirmed promotional sockpuppets. ( Sockpuppet Investigations) Most sources are either self-published, primary (indidea.org, and e.foundation), about a few projects he was involved with, interviews of other people, short mentions (e.g. of his firing from Mandriva), or not reliable (i.e. TGDaily). I note that sock and meat puppetry was a concern at [9] where both Caliwing and Indidea participated, and may be expected here. Yae4 ( talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
"Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this."— Newslinger talk 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Possibly a notable topic, but not very useful in its current form. The title may be more suited to a disambiguation page. – bradv 🍁 05:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Page copies Japanese idol and Korean idol; these articles already exist in respect to their own countries, so this seems like a duplicate article. lullabying ( talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Characters in a WP:MILL anime series that is "based on dinosaurs and explosions". Almost entirely unsourced, except for a bit of trivia which could also be added to the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT. No indication that these characters as a group, or any of them (as opposed to their anime series) have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources, though. At any rate, the natural habitat for such fancruft are fan wikis. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Borderline notable?You kidding me? Super Sentai lasted for decades and their annual sales are billions of yen. ミラ P 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sourcessays it all: our latest Signpost report states that,
There have been many articles on notable topics deleted here simply because we didn't have access to the sources in Japan. The deletion process here is extremely biased against non-English sources and topics. If it hasn't been discussed in an English-language source, there are a fair number of editors who have to be reminded that sources are not required to be in English, and that it is much more difficult to get sources from a country where there has been less effort at getting older sources online. It's live-action, not anime, and explosions are routine in the franchise. ミラ P 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Nothing turned up in an internet search and a Rock's Backpages search. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Iyamu doesn't appear to be notable under his stage name or real name. The sources are largely puff pieces and otherwise unreliable (especially those that I removed, which are part of a black hat SEO spam group and entirely fake.)
None of the remaining sources are in depth coverage, they're interviews or pieces unattributed to any actual editor from those papers. A search reveals more of the aforementioned "fake" news sites ( like this one, who's editorial staff are stock images and famous people's photos) or press releases and interviews and his 4 self published books do nothing to establish notability. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep: I randomly came across this while curating articles on Edo history and just had to comment. I do not know what Praxidicae is talking about when he says fake sources and unsourced. WP:BLP and WP:V are very clearly satisfied here, with Thompson Iyamu being featured in multiple major Nigerian newspapers. Ask any Nigerian about these newspapers and he or she can confirm that these are major legitimate newspapers which everyone in Nigeria knows about. In Nigeria, they are the equivalents of The New York Post and The Telegraph. One of them is in fact almost 100 years old. These Nigerian newspapers are all covered on Wikipedia.
These are reliable sources that have dedicated entire articles for featuring Thompson Iyamu.
Here is the template of major Nigerian newspapers in case you are still not convinced:
So let me clarify a few more things. I was browsing and editing through many articles of Edo history and prominent Edo people when I suddenly came upon this article by chance. I don't know who wrote this and how this all started, but as a Nigerian of Edo heritage who actually knows about Edo (Benin) society, I just have to point out that any Nigerian will be able to tell you that this article should clearly not be deleted. Besides being known from his music career in the UK, Thompson Iyamu is from the prominent Akenzua family of Southern Nigeria, which is a historicaly important family that Nigerians from that area all know about.
We all know too well that the blatant systematic bias on Wikipedia ( WP:WORLDVIEW) allows for topics in developed countries to thrive on Wikipedia, while African topics are not only underrepresented, but also often unfairly treated and purged due to all sorts of arbitrarily interpreted policies that often do not fit well into the African context. While Royal British and Scandinavian family members with notable careers in the arts have a very easy time, the fact that African royal family members with notable careers in the arts are harassed like this points to a deep systematic bias that the Wikipedia community seriously needs to address.
Have you ever wondered why the current members of the British royal family are not being similarly harassed on Wikipedia? Because of WP:BIAS. The Wikipedia community at large is predominantly non-African and has very little knowledge of how to properly select and curate encyclopedia articles that would be useful to Africans. Every month, notable Africans who have made invaluable contributions to society are deleted, while fake pastors, fraudulent businessmen and corrupt politicians of no obvious notability are allowed to thrive.
And royal family member or not, this is a musician and actor who clearly belongs in an online reference work, like Thompson's relative Peju Layiwola, also of the well-known Akenzua family. Touring with Weird MC, appearing in many notable films, and other films, he is also notable abroad. Back home, any Nigerian you meet in Benin City will tell you that this person is clearly not a nobody who should not be on an encyclopedia.
If there are any inadequecies, I will volunteer my time to improve the article's content and citations.
I am only giving my honest opinion here. I hope you will all think twice before saying that this article deserves to be deleted.
So keep this my brothers. Let's contribute to the encyclopedia, build our community and help the world with free, useful knowledge. Graygraphiticus ( talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
No evidence this fictional character passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors don't agree as to whether the sources identified meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This article about a mixed-use development fails WP:NGEO. Many of the references read like press releases and therefore, in my opinion, they should not be considered independent of the subject. Also, many of the sources are from before the development was fully constructed, which calls into question its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance according to WP:NBUILD. Bait30 Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable child actor. But no reliable sources were found. Ni3Xposite ( talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Promotional and borderline non-notable The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion
With respect to notability , most of the references are either articles about the general problem, or essentially press releases, or mere notices. . The NYT article mention this firm among others, as does CNN & the WSJ--they do not amount to significant coverage. The Forbes article is by a "contributor"--a press release they taken o responsibility for. The awards are minor, and not of general significance. As for promotionalism : most of the article is advocacy about the need for an organization such as this one, all throughout the article, & particularly in section 2. The article gives promotional features of the company's plan, addressed only to prospective users, ( " all employees are eligible from day one") It's written in a manner appropriate to a web page, ("financial wellness" ; "responsible and sustainable man". The company name is used over 20 times in the short article. .
Normally on seeing such an article I'd move it into draft space. But it already was in draft space, and the author moved it into main space themself, thus defeating the the purpose of having the article reviewed. I should note that the ed. is not usually a promotional editor, but works competently on reasonable subjects in the field of entertainment; I cannot account for this exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedural nomination to stop editors from edit warring over whether it should be in draft space. The sources in the article are nowhere near WP:GNG. It doesn't look like there's any coverage in English, and I was able to find some trivial coverage in Japanese. I wasn't able to search in Lithuanian, which is another language that may have coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Software Technology Parks of India. MBisanz talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
All available coverage covers Rai in the context of, and generally as a spokesman for, Software Technology Parks of India. I don't think that GNG has been met. Thus, I think that redirect to Software Technology Parks of India is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
RufinaSmith ( talk) 07:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Forrest, Arizona. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There used to an industrial spur from Forrest, Arizona to this place, but in spite of an array of black squares on old enough topos which look like a town, aerials show that this was always and only some sort of industrial concern (a lime plant, various references tell me), and not a settlement. There is some reference to the place in historic discussion of the rail line (the plant was the last customer on the line) but I'm not seeing that as giving notability. Mangoe ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There is only one source in the article. The source is not enough for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
-- WikiAviator ( talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Redirect seems the obvious consensus, but whether to redirect to the company or the individual is a bit more problematic. I judge consensus to be to the company, but this could be further discussed and the redirect modified if necessary. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Article on a company is sourced to Wikipedia itself, the company's own website, a defunct page called "guardiansorder.com", and a marignally RS book. A BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Yet neither sources published by an article's subject, nor sources covered by PRIMARY, count towards Notability for purposes of Keep or Delete !votes at AfD. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Another non-settlement in Cochise Co., AZ, it was actually... an orchard. Really. It is marked as such on older topos, and aerial views still show traces of crop rows. All the buildings here go with the orchard, and a basic search gives a ton of geoclickbait and nothing of substance. Mangoe ( talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Promotional article by an IP editor on a for-profit corporation is sourced to a single reference, which is purely incidental in nature. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any WP:RS. Chetsford ( talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, there seem to be sour grapes in the nomination, since the terms "promotional" and "incidental" are used by the Nom even though neither term actually applies to this article. The nominator has also misapplied SIGCOV in the above comment, which is below the standard I expect from an Admin, even a relatively "green" one. Perhaps they could strive for more accurate presentation in future. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 3. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per procedural keep arguments. MBisanz talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Next stop on the tour of Arizona non-places is this siding. Yes, that's all it is: a siding on a rail line which was abandoned sometime in the 1980s, if one believes the topos. GMaps actually has a good clue: the remains of a pond a bit to the east which it labels "Chiricahua Siding Tank", presumably to supply water back in the steam era. It's obvious there was never a settlement here. Mangoe ( talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following pseudo-settlements in Cochise County, Arizona which also represent former sidings on rail lines:
Mangoe ( talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Apache Powder Company. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 03:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Another GNIS-hallucinated "populated place", it's actually a "station" (in this case, a small yard just south of an industrial lead) outside St. David, Arizona which has plainly never been a settlement. As a rule we haven't considered these spots-on-the-railroad to be notable. Mangoe ( talk) 03:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Analog Horror
Doesn't pass WP:GNG because it doesn't show how Robert V. Bartlett is notable. He just seems like an average school teacher who doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. -- Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No citations beyond the personal web site of the individual the article references. On first glance the article appears to be a cited piece with links to dozens of other wiki topics but there are no citations or references to show notability other than a personal web site. The subject does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is nothing more than a PR page with nothing to back it up. Jimmydanglewood ( talk) 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There’s a lot of detail in this article but a search for sources does not show sustained coverage and this is possibly an attack page. Anyway the notability of the subject is doubtful. Mccapra ( talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article creator is determined to have this article in mainspace, in spite of the existence of a draft here and an attempt to redirect. I'm guessing a PROD would be removed. However, it's entirely unsourced, and no reliable sources are on Google. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ ping}} me after replying off my talk page 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a topic should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included.Only because this TV series was nationally braodcast, doesnt make it automatically notable. Coverage in one reliable source is not significant coverage. We also have to consider current persistent attempts of production companies from India to create wikipedia articles of their TV shows, and actors; during the publicity/marketing campaigns. As per WP:COMMONSENSE, PR, paid news/reviews, WP:ROUTINE coverage is bound to take place. At least 2-3 reviews (not capsule reviews), and/or significant coverage is required for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 10:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY Sulfurboy ( talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails to meet GNG as well as WP:ARTIST Less Unless ( talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails GNG as well as WP:SINGER Less Unless ( talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I came across this article when reverting vandalism. Looking at it after my revert, I noticed that it was outrageously promotional, and started trimming - it quickly became apparent that there was no content that wasn't supported by either a press release republished in the local press, a Google search, or a dependent source. Checking for sources online, I could find nothing to indicate that this entity would pass WP:NCORP; therefore, delete. GirthSummit (blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Related to Missionary position. Störm (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Non notable person. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete - even if he could be verified, he was run of the mill - a judge in one smallish city. Bearian ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary dab page, we can add a hatnote to the Coat of arms article if determined necessary. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Cites no refs, I couldn't unearth much more with a preliminary WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Yunshui 雲 水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This film is under sourced and not notable. This page was created for a film that has highly negative reviews and has been mocked by other films. DragoMynaa ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Yunshui 雲 水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. – sgeureka t• c 08:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any in-depth discussion or analysis of this character, the article is pure WP:PLOT and in the linked sources (those that I can access) nor in my general BEFORE, as I said, I am not seeing anything useful, through the search here is made pretty difficult due to the character's super generic name. Can anyone find any sources that discuss this character in depth and beyond pure plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
* Merge and Redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) per WP's core content policy, PRESERVE. And the article concerns a BOOK, not a "commercial product", for those keeping score at home. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements. There were some sources found, but it's questionable whether most of them are WP:RS. The redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, complies with WP:ATD, and preserves the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sulfurboy ( talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPROF Sulfurboy ( talk) 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
as per my prod: this is nothing more than original research, TR isn't an institute, it's a research group and all the sources that even make mention of it are just bylines by the authors, which are self published by the page creator. The rest of the sources make no mention of "turing Research" Praxidicae ( talk) 01:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Academics WP:ACADEMIC WP:PROFESSOR Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "Notability requirements for people based on academic achievements" fbatarse
This blog post expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.and it was clearly by someone with a name remarkably similar to your username. Linkedin is irrelevant, as is the rest. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
fbatarse ( talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 09:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Provided sources are softball interviews and/or less-than-reliable blog posts. Searching for sources online, I found nothing, even when searching for Dominican newspapers and Latin American pop culture publications. N.b. that according to the article, Santos has released one single, with no mention of other recordings or performances. The article has also been primarily edited by editors that appear to have COIs. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)