![]() |
The result was delete. Looks like this one fails a wide variety of things - RS, N, FICTION, etc. If there is something in the article that someone wants to merge, ping me and I'll copy it over to your userspace. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. There is no particular reason to retain such a minor fictional element. TTN ( talk) 22:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was Keep but discuss a move. On the one hand, the WP:GNG-based keep claims are well taken and most people don't appear to be convinced that WP:NOTMEMORIAL would justify deletion here (I am also a little unsure what "there's already a perfectly good WP:NOT which applies here" refers to). And as pointed out the "one event" policies and guidelines allow for a repurposing of a noncompliant article in lieu of deletion. On the other hand, the WP:BLP1E (i.e the individual is not notable) arguments are also well taken and a number of people have suggested that a move would be appropriate although I note there is no unanimity on the issue. There was also some discussion of a merge and of a second AFD if no WP:LASTING coverage emerged; these didn't get much discussion but can perhaps be considered outside/after this AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:BIO1E of a person whose only stated or sourced indication of notability is a two-day blip of media coverage upon her death. As always, people are not automatically notable just because their death made it into the news -- if that were how it worked, we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever died in a car accident or a house fire or a workplace safety incident. But there's no other discernible claim of preexisting notability in life here: she's stated as an "activist", but the only evidence of activism being presented is that she volunteered for the local community centre, which is not "inherently" notable work in and of itself. And I checked both Google and ProQuest to find older coverage that might bolster her notability, but was completely unable to find a single piece of reliable source coverage about her, in any context whatsoever, prior to the death blip. Wikipedia is not a free platform for memorializing everybody who ever died, but there's just not enough substance, or enough sourcing for anything apart from her death itself, to deem her notable enough for permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia — the notability test for activists is not automatically passed just because the article and/or its sources use the word "activist", but requires properly sourceable evidence of significant and noteworthy and externally-reported-upon accomplishments as an activist. Bearcat ( talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
“Julie has suffered violence in the past and it’s important that we remember her advocacy in openly willing to talk about what happens inside the trans community, and her ability to advocate for rights of all members, that made the community better,” said Olivia Nuamah, the executive director of Pride Toronto."
At the 2017 vigil, Berman spoke out on anti-transgender violence, and mourned people she knew who had been killed, according to Susan Gapka, an organizer and educator with The 519.
The result was no consensus. Google searches are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Sandstein 10:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't have articles for the first two seasons of Khelo India Youth Games. This us about the third edition and it may not be necassary to keep a national junior level competition in the encyclopedia. It clearly fails WP:GNG. Abishe ( talk) 11:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Many India media is covering it including Newspaper, Online, TV News etc it is youth games but have generated more coverage than National Games. The article should remain in wikipedia. ( talk) 17:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clearly not notable on the basis of GNG. There is some discussion about whether WP:ARTIST-based notability exists, but there isn't a consensus on this and most people did not address it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Can a qualified user continue this process for me? I've looked at the sources cited in the article, and searched Google books and generally online, and there just doesn't seem to be anything justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The fact that the lead specifies her to be "emerging" is borne out by the fact that she doesn't seem to have done anything that would make her really "notable" per the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The only real achievements presented are that she had an exhibition at the Rooster Gallery, Vilnius, which is specifically for young Lithuanian artists that aren't established, and won a minor prize (unnamed) in 2007, since when it doesn't seem she's increased in notability at all. The other sites cited seem to be all based on the "young artists that may be big in the future" (collectgoodstuff.com claims to be "an inspiring platform and marketplace with a curated selection of emerging artists, new talents and unique art-related products. Our mission is to discover promising talents, work with outstanding artists on new collaborations and provide collectors with compelling artistic contents", i.e. promotion of works for their art sales site; art-bites.com gives a very similar spiel); since she hasn't yet reached that stage, nor is there any particular reason to assume that she definitely will, it seems to be putting the cart considerably before the horse to give her an article, certainly at this point. Thank you. 78.144.65.128 ( talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP user. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a non-notable residential building in New York City. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. All references provided merely mention building announcing construction or as it relates to the new neighborhood- it's a random apartment building. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 21:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Article about a self-published singer, quite possibly autobiographical. No indication subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Draftspace version was rejected at WP:AfC. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I gave his name a search and it seems like he has made several mildly notable Z-films, but he does not appear to be notable himself. ★Trekker ( talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who added this article originally. I do agree that he is not, at this time, notable enough to maintain on WP. I vote in favor of deletion. Cyberherbalist ( talk) 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. kingboyk ( talk) 13:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced and flagged since 2010. He's written some books but I'm not seeing significant third-party coverage. There's an Imbd listing of talkshow appearances, but again, that's the same problem as here - not RS and likely created as self-promotion. As no one has seen fit to improve it after ten years... - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. Yet to appear in a fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
BLP without decent references. Tells us how successful he is. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) CatcherStorm talk 05:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There are zero references and only two external links for this article, one of them being the professor's personal page at the FSU website. The other link makes no mention of the subject at all. CatcherStorm talk 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. And salt, given the history of Meade Skelton. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
An article about the same person, without the (unnecessary) disambiguator, was deleted following an AfD all the way back in 2005, but, as far as I can tell, was recreated several times over the following years before finally being protected... but that didn't stop this article from being recreated again under this name in 2017. Even without such a history, I don't feel the subject is notable at all, as Google failed to bring up any reliable non-primary sources other than the six already cited in the article, plus it seems the subject is only known for narcissistic behaviour in Internet forums back in the 2000s. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A long list of non-notable video games, none with its own article. Sourced primarily by its publisher and digital distribution channels. WP:NOTCATALOG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. It's up to editors whether to create a redirect, opinion is divided about this. But consensus is clearly not to keep this. I'm ignoring BOZ's pure vote as usual. Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Very minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are only a handful of primary sources being used. Searching for sources brings up plenty of results on the many other topics with the same name. However, the D&D version has nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
One misspelt star wars charater and one other; does not seem necessary to me. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) hueman1 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The page was moved to draftspace. hueman1 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, have been unable to find significant coverage outside the smh review included in the article (it is included in IMDB here), for example, a search under various permutations at the NFSA site ( such as "Romilly Cavan") and the ABC ( like this) brings up nothing, would suggest that a mention at the writer's wikiarticle is probably enough but unfortunately Romilly Cavan does not have a lesson (although she may be notable?). Also, there is no mention at Ken Hannam, the director's article. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 14:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability for what is a blatant marketing handout Slatersteven ( talk) 13:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Not notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. In search results, her name appears in the context of "wife-of" or "bride-of" her notable husband. Of the four sources cited, the first is a self-placed advertisement, two say virtually nothing about her, and one speaks of her involvement in one event. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 14:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This fails to establish notability. The previous AfD seems to have been an "it's important" argument rather than anything to do with passing WP:N. TTN ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cicero#Notable fictional portrayals. Being bold and closing this one early. SNOW for redirect. Missvain ( talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 12:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and to exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability.
Keep Article has significant coverage from secondary sources.
Tayi Arajakate (
talk)
16:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources are routine coverages. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources are routine coverages. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
No sign of notability and promotional Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Taking to AfD rather than prod in case I'm missing something. Could possibly redirect to Kitelife, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 08:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Since this article was created by me during my days when I wasn't so good at avoiding copyvios, I feel it is better to delete it so I can recreate it afresh, a.k.a. the phoenix being reborn. The old copyvio revisions (basically, all older revisions) will anyway be deleted, so it's best to let the whole article be deleted; I have saved my revamp elsewhere and can recreate the article using it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has been tagged since 2008 for in-universe style, reliance on primary refs and lack of notability. Most of it isn’t sourced at all. Some sections may be merged to City of Heroes but for the most part it does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra ( talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Article topic does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. This search of the WP:VG/SE pulls up nothing of interest or significance. Izno ( talk) 05:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. I remember trying to upsell this when I worked at EB Games, just to get it off the shelf...no dice. Kind of amusing to see it here, once more failing to thrive. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Article topic does not appear to be notable based on this search on the WP:VG/SE. Metacritic similarly lists no professional reviews from print sources. Izno ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Subject is a fitness trainer and blogger. Sources provided on the page are not reliable as they are mainly blog or style magazines. Sources found on line are interviews (not independent), social media sites or blog. Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. The delete camp does go into more detail about why the sources are inadequate to establish inclusion against WP:NOTNEWS Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was originally proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but the article creator objected. The reason for the original proposal still stands. A minor earthquake with no damage or casualties is not even remotely a notable WP:EVENT. TornadoLGS ( talk) 03:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedural nomination: I declined WP:PROD per the guidelines because the article has been PRODed (and deleted) once before. The nominator User:Chubbles' rationale was:
Gerard Starkie is the only possibly-notable signee to this label; the others mentioned were only on a limited-edition vinyl release. The label seems only to have put out a couple of Starkie's albums and the compilation. Not "one of the more important indie labels" per WP:MUSIC
- kingboyk ( talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. with the sources now provided, article now fulfils WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It isn't content that should be on an encyclopedia. It only cites one source, isn't really full sentences, and isn't notable. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 02:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. This discussion is not a vote, but a method of establishing consensus by making convincing arguments in the light of Wikipedia's established policies and practices. It contains many "keep" opinions, but all of them must be disregarded because they do not address the reason for which deletion is requested. That reason is alleged lack of notability ( WP:N) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. In response to such a nomination, "keep" opinions must identify such coverage in order to be taken into account. But none do, as SportingFlyer points out. Instead we read things like "he's big on Youtube", "he's well known", "there are too many AfDs" and some personal attacks. The complaints about the previous AfDs, in particular, are not convincing because they all resulted in no consensus. None of these assertions address the nominator's contention that there are not enough reliable sources about this person for us to write an article about him. As such, I must treat this contention as unrebutted and therefore determinative for the outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 20:58, 1 February 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}} . |
There is no substantial RS coverage of this person, making it near-impossible to write a Wikipedia article on him. There are only four RS (per the RSP list [16]) that mention Kulinski: two that list him as one of multiple founders of the Justice Democrats, and two Fox News pieces that note that he shared clips on Twitter defending Cenk Uygur. While the Justice Democrats are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage) and Cenk Uygur are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage), Kulinski is not (as shown by the dearth of RS coverage). A previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus" because the subject of the article directed supporters to the AfD, creating absolute chaos in the AfD discussion. The first and second AfD discussions (which took place in 2017) were poorly attended and ended in "no consensus". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.Lightburst ( talk) 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
perhaps folks could also consider a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go. That's what this is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Primarily a list of winners of its awards. I am not a good judge of notability here due to my unfamiliarity with the topic, but this feels like it may not meet WP:GNG. Raymie ( t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Amateur radio operating award. Except Logbook of The World. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Also nominating
the same arguments apply to both all of these articles. These are both all sourced from sources which are either the contest's own website, amateur radio blogs, or the websites of entities which are closely associated with the contests (i.e.
ARRL,
RSGB) and are thus not
WP:INDEPENDENT. My own searching didn't find anything better. There's also
Draft:Parks on the Air, which I'm not formally including in this AfD since it's a draft, but basically this all applies there as well.
There's a few others in Category:Amateur radio operating awards, but the ones I've noted above seem the most egregious. For example, Jamboree on the Air, has a couple of good WP:RS (Irish Times, Christian Science Monitor) and thus qualifies for WP:GNG on its own.
As an WP:ATD, it might make sense to merge these all into Amateur radio operating award, which could be expanded to include a section on each one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Looks like this one fails a wide variety of things - RS, N, FICTION, etc. If there is something in the article that someone wants to merge, ping me and I'll copy it over to your userspace. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. There is no particular reason to retain such a minor fictional element. TTN ( talk) 22:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was Keep but discuss a move. On the one hand, the WP:GNG-based keep claims are well taken and most people don't appear to be convinced that WP:NOTMEMORIAL would justify deletion here (I am also a little unsure what "there's already a perfectly good WP:NOT which applies here" refers to). And as pointed out the "one event" policies and guidelines allow for a repurposing of a noncompliant article in lieu of deletion. On the other hand, the WP:BLP1E (i.e the individual is not notable) arguments are also well taken and a number of people have suggested that a move would be appropriate although I note there is no unanimity on the issue. There was also some discussion of a merge and of a second AFD if no WP:LASTING coverage emerged; these didn't get much discussion but can perhaps be considered outside/after this AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:BIO1E of a person whose only stated or sourced indication of notability is a two-day blip of media coverage upon her death. As always, people are not automatically notable just because their death made it into the news -- if that were how it worked, we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever died in a car accident or a house fire or a workplace safety incident. But there's no other discernible claim of preexisting notability in life here: she's stated as an "activist", but the only evidence of activism being presented is that she volunteered for the local community centre, which is not "inherently" notable work in and of itself. And I checked both Google and ProQuest to find older coverage that might bolster her notability, but was completely unable to find a single piece of reliable source coverage about her, in any context whatsoever, prior to the death blip. Wikipedia is not a free platform for memorializing everybody who ever died, but there's just not enough substance, or enough sourcing for anything apart from her death itself, to deem her notable enough for permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia — the notability test for activists is not automatically passed just because the article and/or its sources use the word "activist", but requires properly sourceable evidence of significant and noteworthy and externally-reported-upon accomplishments as an activist. Bearcat ( talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
“Julie has suffered violence in the past and it’s important that we remember her advocacy in openly willing to talk about what happens inside the trans community, and her ability to advocate for rights of all members, that made the community better,” said Olivia Nuamah, the executive director of Pride Toronto."
At the 2017 vigil, Berman spoke out on anti-transgender violence, and mourned people she knew who had been killed, according to Susan Gapka, an organizer and educator with The 519.
The result was no consensus. Google searches are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Sandstein 10:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't have articles for the first two seasons of Khelo India Youth Games. This us about the third edition and it may not be necassary to keep a national junior level competition in the encyclopedia. It clearly fails WP:GNG. Abishe ( talk) 11:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Many India media is covering it including Newspaper, Online, TV News etc it is youth games but have generated more coverage than National Games. The article should remain in wikipedia. ( talk) 17:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clearly not notable on the basis of GNG. There is some discussion about whether WP:ARTIST-based notability exists, but there isn't a consensus on this and most people did not address it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Can a qualified user continue this process for me? I've looked at the sources cited in the article, and searched Google books and generally online, and there just doesn't seem to be anything justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The fact that the lead specifies her to be "emerging" is borne out by the fact that she doesn't seem to have done anything that would make her really "notable" per the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The only real achievements presented are that she had an exhibition at the Rooster Gallery, Vilnius, which is specifically for young Lithuanian artists that aren't established, and won a minor prize (unnamed) in 2007, since when it doesn't seem she's increased in notability at all. The other sites cited seem to be all based on the "young artists that may be big in the future" (collectgoodstuff.com claims to be "an inspiring platform and marketplace with a curated selection of emerging artists, new talents and unique art-related products. Our mission is to discover promising talents, work with outstanding artists on new collaborations and provide collectors with compelling artistic contents", i.e. promotion of works for their art sales site; art-bites.com gives a very similar spiel); since she hasn't yet reached that stage, nor is there any particular reason to assume that she definitely will, it seems to be putting the cart considerably before the horse to give her an article, certainly at this point. Thank you. 78.144.65.128 ( talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP user. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a non-notable residential building in New York City. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. All references provided merely mention building announcing construction or as it relates to the new neighborhood- it's a random apartment building. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 21:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Article about a self-published singer, quite possibly autobiographical. No indication subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Draftspace version was rejected at WP:AfC. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I gave his name a search and it seems like he has made several mildly notable Z-films, but he does not appear to be notable himself. ★Trekker ( talk) 20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who added this article originally. I do agree that he is not, at this time, notable enough to maintain on WP. I vote in favor of deletion. Cyberherbalist ( talk) 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. kingboyk ( talk) 13:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced and flagged since 2010. He's written some books but I'm not seeing significant third-party coverage. There's an Imbd listing of talkshow appearances, but again, that's the same problem as here - not RS and likely created as self-promotion. As no one has seen fit to improve it after ten years... - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. Yet to appear in a fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
BLP without decent references. Tells us how successful he is. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) CatcherStorm talk 05:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There are zero references and only two external links for this article, one of them being the professor's personal page at the FSU website. The other link makes no mention of the subject at all. CatcherStorm talk 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. And salt, given the history of Meade Skelton. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
An article about the same person, without the (unnecessary) disambiguator, was deleted following an AfD all the way back in 2005, but, as far as I can tell, was recreated several times over the following years before finally being protected... but that didn't stop this article from being recreated again under this name in 2017. Even without such a history, I don't feel the subject is notable at all, as Google failed to bring up any reliable non-primary sources other than the six already cited in the article, plus it seems the subject is only known for narcissistic behaviour in Internet forums back in the 2000s. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A long list of non-notable video games, none with its own article. Sourced primarily by its publisher and digital distribution channels. WP:NOTCATALOG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. It's up to editors whether to create a redirect, opinion is divided about this. But consensus is clearly not to keep this. I'm ignoring BOZ's pure vote as usual. Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Very minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are only a handful of primary sources being used. Searching for sources brings up plenty of results on the many other topics with the same name. However, the D&D version has nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
One misspelt star wars charater and one other; does not seem necessary to me. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) hueman1 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The page was moved to draftspace. hueman1 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, have been unable to find significant coverage outside the smh review included in the article (it is included in IMDB here), for example, a search under various permutations at the NFSA site ( such as "Romilly Cavan") and the ABC ( like this) brings up nothing, would suggest that a mention at the writer's wikiarticle is probably enough but unfortunately Romilly Cavan does not have a lesson (although she may be notable?). Also, there is no mention at Ken Hannam, the director's article. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 14:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability for what is a blatant marketing handout Slatersteven ( talk) 13:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Not notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. In search results, her name appears in the context of "wife-of" or "bride-of" her notable husband. Of the four sources cited, the first is a self-placed advertisement, two say virtually nothing about her, and one speaks of her involvement in one event. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 14:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This fails to establish notability. The previous AfD seems to have been an "it's important" argument rather than anything to do with passing WP:N. TTN ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cicero#Notable fictional portrayals. Being bold and closing this one early. SNOW for redirect. Missvain ( talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 12:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and to exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability.
Keep Article has significant coverage from secondary sources.
Tayi Arajakate (
talk)
16:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources are routine coverages. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources are routine coverages. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
No sign of notability and promotional Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Taking to AfD rather than prod in case I'm missing something. Could possibly redirect to Kitelife, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 08:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Since this article was created by me during my days when I wasn't so good at avoiding copyvios, I feel it is better to delete it so I can recreate it afresh, a.k.a. the phoenix being reborn. The old copyvio revisions (basically, all older revisions) will anyway be deleted, so it's best to let the whole article be deleted; I have saved my revamp elsewhere and can recreate the article using it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has been tagged since 2008 for in-universe style, reliance on primary refs and lack of notability. Most of it isn’t sourced at all. Some sections may be merged to City of Heroes but for the most part it does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra ( talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Article topic does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. This search of the WP:VG/SE pulls up nothing of interest or significance. Izno ( talk) 05:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. I remember trying to upsell this when I worked at EB Games, just to get it off the shelf...no dice. Kind of amusing to see it here, once more failing to thrive. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Article topic does not appear to be notable based on this search on the WP:VG/SE. Metacritic similarly lists no professional reviews from print sources. Izno ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Subject is a fitness trainer and blogger. Sources provided on the page are not reliable as they are mainly blog or style magazines. Sources found on line are interviews (not independent), social media sites or blog. Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. The delete camp does go into more detail about why the sources are inadequate to establish inclusion against WP:NOTNEWS Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was originally proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but the article creator objected. The reason for the original proposal still stands. A minor earthquake with no damage or casualties is not even remotely a notable WP:EVENT. TornadoLGS ( talk) 03:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Procedural nomination: I declined WP:PROD per the guidelines because the article has been PRODed (and deleted) once before. The nominator User:Chubbles' rationale was:
Gerard Starkie is the only possibly-notable signee to this label; the others mentioned were only on a limited-edition vinyl release. The label seems only to have put out a couple of Starkie's albums and the compilation. Not "one of the more important indie labels" per WP:MUSIC
- kingboyk ( talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. with the sources now provided, article now fulfils WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It isn't content that should be on an encyclopedia. It only cites one source, isn't really full sentences, and isn't notable. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 02:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. This discussion is not a vote, but a method of establishing consensus by making convincing arguments in the light of Wikipedia's established policies and practices. It contains many "keep" opinions, but all of them must be disregarded because they do not address the reason for which deletion is requested. That reason is alleged lack of notability ( WP:N) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. In response to such a nomination, "keep" opinions must identify such coverage in order to be taken into account. But none do, as SportingFlyer points out. Instead we read things like "he's big on Youtube", "he's well known", "there are too many AfDs" and some personal attacks. The complaints about the previous AfDs, in particular, are not convincing because they all resulted in no consensus. None of these assertions address the nominator's contention that there are not enough reliable sources about this person for us to write an article about him. As such, I must treat this contention as unrebutted and therefore determinative for the outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 20:58, 1 February 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}} . |
There is no substantial RS coverage of this person, making it near-impossible to write a Wikipedia article on him. There are only four RS (per the RSP list [16]) that mention Kulinski: two that list him as one of multiple founders of the Justice Democrats, and two Fox News pieces that note that he shared clips on Twitter defending Cenk Uygur. While the Justice Democrats are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage) and Cenk Uygur are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage), Kulinski is not (as shown by the dearth of RS coverage). A previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus" because the subject of the article directed supporters to the AfD, creating absolute chaos in the AfD discussion. The first and second AfD discussions (which took place in 2017) were poorly attended and ended in "no consensus". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.Lightburst ( talk) 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
perhaps folks could also consider a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go. That's what this is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Primarily a list of winners of its awards. I am not a good judge of notability here due to my unfamiliarity with the topic, but this feels like it may not meet WP:GNG. Raymie ( t • c) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Amateur radio operating award. Except Logbook of The World. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Also nominating
the same arguments apply to both all of these articles. These are both all sourced from sources which are either the contest's own website, amateur radio blogs, or the websites of entities which are closely associated with the contests (i.e.
ARRL,
RSGB) and are thus not
WP:INDEPENDENT. My own searching didn't find anything better. There's also
Draft:Parks on the Air, which I'm not formally including in this AfD since it's a draft, but basically this all applies there as well.
There's a few others in Category:Amateur radio operating awards, but the ones I've noted above seem the most egregious. For example, Jamboree on the Air, has a couple of good WP:RS (Irish Times, Christian Science Monitor) and thus qualifies for WP:GNG on its own.
As an WP:ATD, it might make sense to merge these all into Amateur radio operating award, which could be expanded to include a section on each one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)