The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non- WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a 2-line plot summary at BFI and a blog (by someone who thinks that a 1996 film is "really old"), but nothing of any substance. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 05:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Notability concerns with this one (and quite possibly dozens of others created by the same author) if coverage by the independently run (and defunct) online magazine with a single proprietor, Sonic Boom, isn't deemed significant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tribun News. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
does not seem notable. Only ref/external link is to its own webpage. ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 23:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The article does not have anything of value to be listed on WP. Even under WP:UNIV it does not stand. There are no references other than to its own website. Earlier it was put up for speedy by me because the entire article was copy vio. Unless the article can be substantially improved and referenced per WP guidelines (including the 'Notable Alumni') it should be deleted. AquariusWineOwl ( talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Phil Bridger: I was just asking if you had anything other than the books. I never said they were not of value, so I apologize if you interpreted it that way. @ John from Idegon: The entire article was put up for a speedy as it was a complete copy and paste, an editor removed the speedy and reverted the article to way back when. When I look at WP:UNIV it does not meet any criteria nor does it have any sources other than the school website itself. The person who removed the speedy stated they removed it based on "all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia" however, the rest of that states "Hence the advice is not intended to lend additional support to deletion discussions". The article has exactly one line in it "The Ajman University of Science and Technology (AUST) is a technology-oriented university in Ajman, United Arab Emirates.[1] The university was founded in 1988 as a university college. Notable alumni include Yaser Birjas." and nothing else. It had a references needed notice up there dated back a couple of years, however, I can not pull it up because the history for that part appears to be deleted (from 30 AUG 2020 to 4 SEPT 2020 is not clickable). I will not withdraw the nomination, I am sorry. This is not an article in the least. AquariusWineOwl ( talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ John from Idegon: You have no right to close this as I was typing up my response to answer your question. It is now answered. AquariusWineOwl ( talk) 03:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior Brighton or MK Dons teams, and Ireland league isn't fully-pro. Brighton U21 squad can't be fully-pro by definition. BlameRuiner ( talk) 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
68th in the line of succession to the British throne but no evidence of notability as a photographer. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable cracker. The majority of the sources are pieces he wrote, and the rest are either name-drops or stuff he says. Two are 404-compliant (one of which is a newspaper clipping that returns a service-specific "this image doesn't exist" placeholder). Google News returns nothing (String: "Benild Joseph"). — A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable journalist. References are to his articles, not to articles that imply his notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 ( talk) 21:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why we need a list of all studies of a certain types. What's next? List of randomized single-blind drug trials? List of cohort studies?
This is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 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.. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable documentary, tagged for 9 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Couldn't find any reliable reviews. TamilMirchi ( talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing particularly special about controllers for Sega video game consoles as a whole that makes them notable enough for an article. Appropriate coverage for each controller is already included in their respective console articles, or in cases like Menacer, in their own respective article. Sources used here are unreliable save for the Loguidice book. Not really anything to merge here, either, as all of the Sega console articles are exhaustively researched and include details about the controllers and other accessories from reliable sources in their respective articles. Red Phoenix talk 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The outcome was speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: withdrawn by nominator, with no outstanding !votes to delete. Thanks to Yngvadottir for the WP:HEY.— S Marshall T/ C 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORG. Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sources in the article do not meet WP:RS // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable appliance repair company in a Ottawa. The references are mostly fake. Instead of supporting the claims in the article they either have nothing to do with it or are covert attacks on competitors. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra ( talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. This is basically WP:G11 worthy. Half of those references don't even mention Canada, much less the company. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus that GNG is met. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Normally I might regard the granddaughter of a king as notable, but in her case she was born after the abolition of the monarchy in Yugoslavia, so never really a princess. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. While they have played in international matches for the Maldives, these matches were NOT in a World Cup/T20 World Cup Qualifier or Regional Final. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It exists, but doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 18:28, 4 September 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I can't find any evidence of notability. But also, this article is such a dumpster fire of irrelevant info, unsourced claims, and incomprehensible English, that it's hard to see any benefit in keeping. Sourcing is going to be hard to come by, but if someone thinks they can manage, this probably needs to be rewritten from scratch anyway. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this one The topic doesn't seem notable and anything that talks about a "newly emerging form of literacy, the Internet" , in 2020, may be unredeemable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The sources present in the article itself are either not independent, not reliable or are passing mentions. A before search presents a similar picture with mostly passing mention that too mostly from unreliable sources. At best the subject is a boderline case of WP:BLP1E. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I came across this individual while looking into sources for the deletion discussion regarding one of his books, and found that not only was that book non-notable, but there are no actual sources demonstrating the author is, either. The only claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. There are two sources included, but one is just in a local newspaper for the area he lives in, and the other is a one-sentence mention. Searching for additional sources turns up a handful of interviews in non-notable podcasts, and that's about it. It appears that many, if not all, of his books were self-published, and did not gain any kind of coverage or press. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. While some editors feel that the stations should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (and they still can), there is a consensus the content is generally notable. A merger (which would be controversial) can still be discussed outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is one of a large number of English local radio stations which have been closed and replaced with a national network. There does not seem to be a need for a page for all these stations - a single page listing Greatest Hits Radio stations should suffice CallLetters ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Nominator has also tagged the following articles for deletion under this page. Nthep ( talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
|above=
field might be used here for "Merged into Greatest Hits Radio"...
Raymie (
t •
c)
20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)The result was speedy keep Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable fictional character, has been in CAT:NN since 2011 and has been tagged as no sources since that same time. This is the fiction story he appears in, so it's a primary source. I'm finding largely mirrors and the primary source materials on Google, along with a few blogs. This apparently refers to the unrelated Glenarvon. Here's the novel again. There's a ton of search engine noise for Glenarvon, the unrelated novel of a different spelling, but I'm finding nothing for Lord Glenarvan. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Contested CSD. Reason was "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Guy Foxx) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt
Reason for contesting stated as "CSD contested: sourced article, substantial edits by other editors"
The edits by other editors were not substantial, as the article history shows.
I am making a technical nomination because I think it should be discussed now. My nomination is Neutral, though I may offer an opinion as the discussion progresses Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as relying on primary sources and potentially not notable since 2010. 331dot ( talk) 15:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
A advertising agency that lacks significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE does not show in-depth non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. There is agreement here that the article should be deleted. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the extreme in one-event notability. 3 of the references are incidental mentions in coverage of a political campaign by her father. The article does not do justice in putting her "appearances" with her father in that campaign in perspective. She turned 6 some time in the year he ran for president. Then we have mention of her in her father's obituary. Then we have coverage of the lawsuit over the literary rights she inherited from her father. That case was settled in her favor 19 years ago, yet we have absolutely nothing about her since. Based on her fahter's name and her name, I assume she is or was at one point married, but no one seems to have cared about that. Being heir to a literary fortune is not a sign of notability. Keep in mind that the fortune is that of her adoptive father's some sort of pseudo-mother mentors, mother. In the time Ms. Allen has been the holder of the Laura Ingalls Wilder literary legacy, Mrs. Wilder had a major literary award unnamed after her in an example of cancel culture, yet it appears that no one in that debate thought that the holder of the Wilder literary fortune was someone worth consulting about the matter. Actually on further inspection it appears her father was chosen as the heir by Mrs. Wilder's daughter because he was his political disciple. Her father actually did things with the legacy at least, producing a TV show for example. There is no evidence Mrs. Allen has done anything with it. Any mention of her we can just include in the article on her father, but I see no reason to include much since almost nothing is known. Most of what I can find in a web search is Wikipedia mirrors, some of it demonstrating just how much influence Wikipedia having an article can have and how we need to be more deliberative about the article creation process. A show of how non-notable even in the lawsuit by the Laura Ingles Wilder Library to get control of the literary estate Mrs. Allen was, it took 10 praragraphs into the article to even name her. Beyond this, Mrs. Allen has actually turned over the control of this legacy to the Little House Heritage Trust, which may or may not have her as the sole controller. This New York Post article [11] says a little bit more about Mrs. Allen, but it says nothing about her by any normal standard, she had been the controlled of the estate for 4 years when the lawsuit was brought, yet there is no evidence she had done anything with it. We do get this short line "Miami-based MacBride suffered a fatal heart attack on March 5, 1995, at age 65, but his daughter Abigail MacBride Allen has overseen the publication of her father’s unpublished manuscripts, starting with The Other Side of the Hill (1995), Little Town in the Ozarks (1996), New Dawn on Rocky Ridge (1997) and On the Banks of the Bayou (1998). The books take Rose up to age 17 when she’s off to follow her dreams." from this source http://libertarianstvo.org/en/personalities/item/72-rose-wilder-lane, but overseeing publication of a few works is not a sign of notability, especially when they were largely written by someone else. I am reduced to scrapping up things like this [12] Amazon review of a book attributed to her father, but published under her perview, and the agreement here is her role in the work makde it worse, although this is a random Amazon review with no indication they even know what Mrs. Allen's actual role in the work was, so not a reliable source. We do here [13] learn the fact that she wrote an intro to a collection of travel diaries by Mrs. Wilder, and for whatever reason she is referred to in this reference as Abigail MacBride. There is no reason to have a freestanding article on Mrs. Allen John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ( talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Only one cited source focuses on this subject. Most everything else I could find is a mere mention or inclusion in a database. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable cable access channel fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Deprodded in 2018; I attempted to prod, unaware of the previous prod which was removed with the message "Television stations meet the general notability guideline". This isn't a broadcast station or the rare notable local cable channel, however. Raymie ( t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG with adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
While accomplished, meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable music Dronebogus ( talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This page was recently accepted through the AFC process, but the reviewer apparently did not notice that every reference that discusses HandWiki is either posted by HandWiki itself, or by Jwork.org, which according to the article is the org behind the HandWiki project. I've searched I have found no independent reliable sources, so I think this ought to be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. MrOllie ( talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
By denying such an obvious resource, we confirm the reason for its existence (a science encyclopedia bigger than Wikipeadia for science topics, cannot be in Wikipedia, because we need a 3rd opinion?). It looks a special case to me. I cannot even find it in any place on Wikipedia (see List_of_online_encyclopedias or Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is a general consensus against deletion, particularly after the relist. While there's no consensus in favor of a merge, it can, of course, be discussed further outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. General consensus is that this, while an interesting topic, has not been discussed enough to be notable, seems to be both OR and an essay. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Not verifiably notable. This essay has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 by an editor who has not edited since 2011, and has been tagged as unsourced since 2007. I came across it while stub-sorting because another editor had labelled it recently as a Stub, which it certainly isn't.
While the phenomenon discussed undoubtedly exists, there is no evidence that it has been recognised as a named entity, or given this name (which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, while terms such as "retroactive continuity" and "retroactive inhibition" are included). Google search seems only to produce mirrors of this article, including a couple of YouTube videos of the article being read out by computer, and the option to buy a 92-page paperback book of the article for $67.53 from Australian Amazon, but no other use of the term. This suggests that the term has no notability, or indeed existence beyond Wikipedia. The talk page shows a couple of grumbles about the article from 2010 and 2011, but no-one seems to have suggested deleting it until now. Although there is no inter-wiki link in the left sidebar, Wikidata shows that there is a Spanish wikipedia article ... created by apparently the same editor, in April 2009 - one of his only 10 edits on that Wikipedia, 2006-2009.
Some of the content, if sourced, might fit into Anachronism, but that article has no mention of this phenomenon (on a quick scan for "nomenclature" or "name").
It's slightly sad to see an interesting article disappear, but there seem no grounds on which this article ought to be appearing in our encyclopedia. I suggest that the time has come to delete it. Pam D 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
feel like I have come across discussion on this, though I cannot recall exactly when or where). I don't think this qualifies under WP:DELREASON#6 as a neologism, because the article is about the concept as opposed to the term. It might however qualify under WP:DELREASON#7 (
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed). Even then, I am tempted to go with an WP:IAR keep, because I honestly think that the existence of this article improves Wikipedia (even in its current, unsourced state). It might be appropriate to change the title, but I have no suggestion as to what the new title should be in that case. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Back in my day, we called it "hard rock." Hair metal is a retroactive nomenclature. We didn't call it hair metal then, but it sure is called that now.), but I would like to draw your attention to this source, which says
We can look back on past actions of others and interpret what they did as an act of self-improvement, but if the concept of self-improvement did not exist yet, can what they did accurately be characterized as self-improvement? (Bochner, 1994) Nevertheless, this type of retroactive nomenclature says something about the attitudes that have prevailed since the beginning of the Twentieth Century.I also found not one, but two uses of the term "retroactive nomenclature" to mean retronym. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
*Delete, doesn't pass NFOOTY or GNG.--
Mvqr (
talk)
13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Fenix down: might be eligible for 'speedy keep' as the nominator has voted keep Spiderone 10:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promotion the director. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [ ✉] 10:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The three non-primary sources presently used are already WP:RUNOFTHEMILL articles rehashing press releases. A WP:BEFORE resulted in no source that could match GNG's "significant coverage" requirement. Furthermore, half of the article is unsourced and written non-neutrally. IceWelder [ ✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
(emphasis mine)There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No reason given for nomination Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
wife of Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson, but doesnt seem very notable in her own right Rathfelder ( talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Emmanuelle in Space. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial sources Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 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. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Could be merged to M-1#List of Recent and Upcoming M-1 Global events as an ATD, but I think that would make the article too long. Recent ones are already covered there, so this is partially a duplicate. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
basement store no more notable than any other walk-in store in NYC. does not pass GNG. Sources primarily about Stockman, (like e.g. the Texas Tribune source) only mention the center in passing. Sources like IBTimes are unreliable. The UCLA source only mentions the center in passing in two sentences. the mention in Reason Magazine is just a short three minute snippet, it is not significant coverage. Ysangkok ( talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete does not seem to pass WP:NCORP to merit its own article. Graywalls ( talk) 18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Compassion & Choices. And/or elsewhere as desired. Sandstein 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:NORG failure. Graywalls ( talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is consensus he is notable, at minimum, for his work in academia. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBUILD. The claim about being the first skyscraper in South Beach is unsourced, as are the claims of notable residents. Even if these were true, I don't think they'd confer notability on the building. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable film, nothing except youtube videos and film database sites showing up in a WP:BEFORE search. Donaldd23 ( talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
An article that is about a WP:NORG failing organization that is only covered in the context of one event which fails WP:NEVENT. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. There is an obit in the Chicago Tribune ( [47]) but that's all the sustained coverage I could find and since he was from Chicagoland it's arguably local coverage. Not to be confused with George Elrick. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Interviews are generally not considered sources which establish notability. However, there is clearly enough dissension that closing as delete would not be appropriate. No prejudice to a renomination in hopes for a broader discussion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The article has been expanded since, but I am afraid this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject received a minor award and is a CEO of a minor company, the coverage is in passing and not in-depth or is obviously written by the subject or her representatives like the bio-blurb at [48] (a site of a company she works for). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania#District 17. The arguments for notability as a politician are weak. The arguments for keeping as an author are stronger, but there's still rough consensus that he's not quite over the threshold of notability independent from his book. The "redirect" closure recognizes this. Editors are free to change the redirect target to the book if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention last night, but that's not a notability criteria. He's an underdog in the November general election. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I DISAGREE. We should at least wait until after the election to decide whether or not to delete this page. After all, if he gets elected then he will be notable enough that we'd just have to recreate this page if it's deleted. - Seanr451 ( talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
OMG I’m sorry but I don’t know how to do this... I’ll read all the primers when I get back to my desktop and can also log an account. The fact the ADMIN writes “underdog” shows bias right there, and the fact he requested deletion just hours after the RNC speech is suspicious, sorry. I saw the speech, a day later heard something on-air so decided to google sean parnell, and couldn’t find a wiki page. The fact that he was a scheduled 5min speaker, when AOC only got a minute, he wasn’t some fly-by video testimonial, and his speech was indeed about inclusiveness, something this ADMIN deleted in his biased showing of non-inclusiveness. I respect the ADMIN’s Grand Wizard wiki mod-status but please stick to sticks & balls... (again MY APOlOGIES for newbie errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7400:66CA:4588:D34A:1923:3AA1 ( talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The OMG comment above is from me. Question,,, as part of my update that Sean is a relevant topic given his speech at the RNC Convention, I also tried to include a link to the PBS video and the aforementioned one-sentence description of the speech. Question to the Admin making changes, If a link and "approved" description of OutLaw Platoon can be included, why can't a link and description of his speech? Lastly, the webform said article "edits" were not required to have a summary of changes, so I didn't on three subsequent small edits correcting name and some character deletions which for some reason the Admin didn't seem to appreciate (about to read primers now but adhd is already kicking in at the prospect,,, :( LucaGrauman ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Previously WP:PRODded and PROD withdrawn. An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non- WP:RS) IMdb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even so much as the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:AUTHOR. The two reviews are by defunct and apparently unreliable sources, and the award for which she (he?) was nominated is from Reviewers International, for which I can find no trace. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
A programming list of syndicated non orignial programming. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:NTELEVISION. Meets WP:NOTTVGUIDE // Timothy :: talk 04:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Adam Maxwell. Redirect as WP:ATD. If the author is not notable, we can discuss that at a separate AfD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Article about a book that does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. MapleSoy ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This private school with no evidence of coverage or being accredited or such seems to fail WP:NORG. Previously prodded by User:PKT in 2012, deprodded by the creator, hasn't been improved since. Other languages are a bit longer but not much and the coverage is either missing or, from what I can Google Translate, very sparse too. Can this be rescued? Also, the biography of the school creator, Kiko da Silva looks very bad but it, at least, has better interwikis (if anyone here speaks Spanish etc. and would care to comment on whether that bio should stay or if it needs its own AfD, that would be appreciated too). But as for this school, at best, I think we could redirect it to his bio? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It is conceivable that his company is notable, but clear that he individually not. 30 under 30 is a pr award, and does not indicate even importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. That's a hell of a thorough nom statement, and zero opposition to it. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
One of over a million charities in the US. [53] Human rights in Bangladesh is a worthy cause, but that doesn't make the charity notable.
Of the cited sources, only Star Weekend Magazine is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Christian Science Monitor contains only one sentence about Drishtipat, which profiled itself (note the use of "our" and "we") and responded to facile interview questions in Culture Connect, the magazine that is the main subject of the CSM article. The Daily Star doesn't mention Drishtipat. The remaining four sources are written by Drishtipat or its executive director, Asif Saleh. (Coincidentally, the Wikipedia article was written by an Asifsaleh.)
Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, found brief mentions, but only one other piece of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source: India West published an article on 8 February 2002 about a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area, attended by about 200 people, that raised $9,000.
Drishtipat's tax exempt status was revoked in 2014 for failure to file tax forms for three consecutive years. [54] Its 2010 filing showed revenue of about $54,000. By contrast, notable human rights charities Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International respectively reported revenue of $42 million and $37 million that year. It seems Drishtipat never got big enough to attract significant attention by the world at large.
Promotional article containing much unsourced content about a well-meaning but non-notable organization. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
1) Fails WP:NOTABILITY, 2) the history section is just a quote (the link to which is dead), 3) a before search turned up zero sources, 4) the official page link under external links is dead. Kingdom(Hearts)Come ( talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non- WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a 2-line plot summary at BFI and a blog (by someone who thinks that a 1996 film is "really old"), but nothing of any substance. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 05:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Notability concerns with this one (and quite possibly dozens of others created by the same author) if coverage by the independently run (and defunct) online magazine with a single proprietor, Sonic Boom, isn't deemed significant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tribun News. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
does not seem notable. Only ref/external link is to its own webpage. ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 23:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The article does not have anything of value to be listed on WP. Even under WP:UNIV it does not stand. There are no references other than to its own website. Earlier it was put up for speedy by me because the entire article was copy vio. Unless the article can be substantially improved and referenced per WP guidelines (including the 'Notable Alumni') it should be deleted. AquariusWineOwl ( talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Phil Bridger: I was just asking if you had anything other than the books. I never said they were not of value, so I apologize if you interpreted it that way. @ John from Idegon: The entire article was put up for a speedy as it was a complete copy and paste, an editor removed the speedy and reverted the article to way back when. When I look at WP:UNIV it does not meet any criteria nor does it have any sources other than the school website itself. The person who removed the speedy stated they removed it based on "all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia" however, the rest of that states "Hence the advice is not intended to lend additional support to deletion discussions". The article has exactly one line in it "The Ajman University of Science and Technology (AUST) is a technology-oriented university in Ajman, United Arab Emirates.[1] The university was founded in 1988 as a university college. Notable alumni include Yaser Birjas." and nothing else. It had a references needed notice up there dated back a couple of years, however, I can not pull it up because the history for that part appears to be deleted (from 30 AUG 2020 to 4 SEPT 2020 is not clickable). I will not withdraw the nomination, I am sorry. This is not an article in the least. AquariusWineOwl ( talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ John from Idegon: You have no right to close this as I was typing up my response to answer your question. It is now answered. AquariusWineOwl ( talk) 03:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior Brighton or MK Dons teams, and Ireland league isn't fully-pro. Brighton U21 squad can't be fully-pro by definition. BlameRuiner ( talk) 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
68th in the line of succession to the British throne but no evidence of notability as a photographer. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable cracker. The majority of the sources are pieces he wrote, and the rest are either name-drops or stuff he says. Two are 404-compliant (one of which is a newspaper clipping that returns a service-specific "this image doesn't exist" placeholder). Google News returns nothing (String: "Benild Joseph"). — A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable journalist. References are to his articles, not to articles that imply his notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 ( talk) 21:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why we need a list of all studies of a certain types. What's next? List of randomized single-blind drug trials? List of cohort studies?
This is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 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.. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable documentary, tagged for 9 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Couldn't find any reliable reviews. TamilMirchi ( talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing particularly special about controllers for Sega video game consoles as a whole that makes them notable enough for an article. Appropriate coverage for each controller is already included in their respective console articles, or in cases like Menacer, in their own respective article. Sources used here are unreliable save for the Loguidice book. Not really anything to merge here, either, as all of the Sega console articles are exhaustively researched and include details about the controllers and other accessories from reliable sources in their respective articles. Red Phoenix talk 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The outcome was speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: withdrawn by nominator, with no outstanding !votes to delete. Thanks to Yngvadottir for the WP:HEY.— S Marshall T/ C 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORG. Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sources in the article do not meet WP:RS // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable appliance repair company in a Ottawa. The references are mostly fake. Instead of supporting the claims in the article they either have nothing to do with it or are covert attacks on competitors. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra ( talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. This is basically WP:G11 worthy. Half of those references don't even mention Canada, much less the company. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus that GNG is met. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Normally I might regard the granddaughter of a king as notable, but in her case she was born after the abolition of the monarchy in Yugoslavia, so never really a princess. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. While they have played in international matches for the Maldives, these matches were NOT in a World Cup/T20 World Cup Qualifier or Regional Final. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It exists, but doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 18:28, 4 September 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I can't find any evidence of notability. But also, this article is such a dumpster fire of irrelevant info, unsourced claims, and incomprehensible English, that it's hard to see any benefit in keeping. Sourcing is going to be hard to come by, but if someone thinks they can manage, this probably needs to be rewritten from scratch anyway. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this one The topic doesn't seem notable and anything that talks about a "newly emerging form of literacy, the Internet" , in 2020, may be unredeemable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The sources present in the article itself are either not independent, not reliable or are passing mentions. A before search presents a similar picture with mostly passing mention that too mostly from unreliable sources. At best the subject is a boderline case of WP:BLP1E. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I came across this individual while looking into sources for the deletion discussion regarding one of his books, and found that not only was that book non-notable, but there are no actual sources demonstrating the author is, either. The only claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. There are two sources included, but one is just in a local newspaper for the area he lives in, and the other is a one-sentence mention. Searching for additional sources turns up a handful of interviews in non-notable podcasts, and that's about it. It appears that many, if not all, of his books were self-published, and did not gain any kind of coverage or press. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. While some editors feel that the stations should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (and they still can), there is a consensus the content is generally notable. A merger (which would be controversial) can still be discussed outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is one of a large number of English local radio stations which have been closed and replaced with a national network. There does not seem to be a need for a page for all these stations - a single page listing Greatest Hits Radio stations should suffice CallLetters ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Nominator has also tagged the following articles for deletion under this page. Nthep ( talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
|above=
field might be used here for "Merged into Greatest Hits Radio"...
Raymie (
t •
c)
20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)The result was speedy keep Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable fictional character, has been in CAT:NN since 2011 and has been tagged as no sources since that same time. This is the fiction story he appears in, so it's a primary source. I'm finding largely mirrors and the primary source materials on Google, along with a few blogs. This apparently refers to the unrelated Glenarvon. Here's the novel again. There's a ton of search engine noise for Glenarvon, the unrelated novel of a different spelling, but I'm finding nothing for Lord Glenarvan. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Contested CSD. Reason was "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Guy Foxx) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt
Reason for contesting stated as "CSD contested: sourced article, substantial edits by other editors"
The edits by other editors were not substantial, as the article history shows.
I am making a technical nomination because I think it should be discussed now. My nomination is Neutral, though I may offer an opinion as the discussion progresses Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as relying on primary sources and potentially not notable since 2010. 331dot ( talk) 15:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
A advertising agency that lacks significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE does not show in-depth non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. There is agreement here that the article should be deleted. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the extreme in one-event notability. 3 of the references are incidental mentions in coverage of a political campaign by her father. The article does not do justice in putting her "appearances" with her father in that campaign in perspective. She turned 6 some time in the year he ran for president. Then we have mention of her in her father's obituary. Then we have coverage of the lawsuit over the literary rights she inherited from her father. That case was settled in her favor 19 years ago, yet we have absolutely nothing about her since. Based on her fahter's name and her name, I assume she is or was at one point married, but no one seems to have cared about that. Being heir to a literary fortune is not a sign of notability. Keep in mind that the fortune is that of her adoptive father's some sort of pseudo-mother mentors, mother. In the time Ms. Allen has been the holder of the Laura Ingalls Wilder literary legacy, Mrs. Wilder had a major literary award unnamed after her in an example of cancel culture, yet it appears that no one in that debate thought that the holder of the Wilder literary fortune was someone worth consulting about the matter. Actually on further inspection it appears her father was chosen as the heir by Mrs. Wilder's daughter because he was his political disciple. Her father actually did things with the legacy at least, producing a TV show for example. There is no evidence Mrs. Allen has done anything with it. Any mention of her we can just include in the article on her father, but I see no reason to include much since almost nothing is known. Most of what I can find in a web search is Wikipedia mirrors, some of it demonstrating just how much influence Wikipedia having an article can have and how we need to be more deliberative about the article creation process. A show of how non-notable even in the lawsuit by the Laura Ingles Wilder Library to get control of the literary estate Mrs. Allen was, it took 10 praragraphs into the article to even name her. Beyond this, Mrs. Allen has actually turned over the control of this legacy to the Little House Heritage Trust, which may or may not have her as the sole controller. This New York Post article [11] says a little bit more about Mrs. Allen, but it says nothing about her by any normal standard, she had been the controlled of the estate for 4 years when the lawsuit was brought, yet there is no evidence she had done anything with it. We do get this short line "Miami-based MacBride suffered a fatal heart attack on March 5, 1995, at age 65, but his daughter Abigail MacBride Allen has overseen the publication of her father’s unpublished manuscripts, starting with The Other Side of the Hill (1995), Little Town in the Ozarks (1996), New Dawn on Rocky Ridge (1997) and On the Banks of the Bayou (1998). The books take Rose up to age 17 when she’s off to follow her dreams." from this source http://libertarianstvo.org/en/personalities/item/72-rose-wilder-lane, but overseeing publication of a few works is not a sign of notability, especially when they were largely written by someone else. I am reduced to scrapping up things like this [12] Amazon review of a book attributed to her father, but published under her perview, and the agreement here is her role in the work makde it worse, although this is a random Amazon review with no indication they even know what Mrs. Allen's actual role in the work was, so not a reliable source. We do here [13] learn the fact that she wrote an intro to a collection of travel diaries by Mrs. Wilder, and for whatever reason she is referred to in this reference as Abigail MacBride. There is no reason to have a freestanding article on Mrs. Allen John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ( talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Only one cited source focuses on this subject. Most everything else I could find is a mere mention or inclusion in a database. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable cable access channel fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Deprodded in 2018; I attempted to prod, unaware of the previous prod which was removed with the message "Television stations meet the general notability guideline". This isn't a broadcast station or the rare notable local cable channel, however. Raymie ( t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG with adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
While accomplished, meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable music Dronebogus ( talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This page was recently accepted through the AFC process, but the reviewer apparently did not notice that every reference that discusses HandWiki is either posted by HandWiki itself, or by Jwork.org, which according to the article is the org behind the HandWiki project. I've searched I have found no independent reliable sources, so I think this ought to be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. MrOllie ( talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
By denying such an obvious resource, we confirm the reason for its existence (a science encyclopedia bigger than Wikipeadia for science topics, cannot be in Wikipedia, because we need a 3rd opinion?). It looks a special case to me. I cannot even find it in any place on Wikipedia (see List_of_online_encyclopedias or Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is a general consensus against deletion, particularly after the relist. While there's no consensus in favor of a merge, it can, of course, be discussed further outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. General consensus is that this, while an interesting topic, has not been discussed enough to be notable, seems to be both OR and an essay. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Not verifiably notable. This essay has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 by an editor who has not edited since 2011, and has been tagged as unsourced since 2007. I came across it while stub-sorting because another editor had labelled it recently as a Stub, which it certainly isn't.
While the phenomenon discussed undoubtedly exists, there is no evidence that it has been recognised as a named entity, or given this name (which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, while terms such as "retroactive continuity" and "retroactive inhibition" are included). Google search seems only to produce mirrors of this article, including a couple of YouTube videos of the article being read out by computer, and the option to buy a 92-page paperback book of the article for $67.53 from Australian Amazon, but no other use of the term. This suggests that the term has no notability, or indeed existence beyond Wikipedia. The talk page shows a couple of grumbles about the article from 2010 and 2011, but no-one seems to have suggested deleting it until now. Although there is no inter-wiki link in the left sidebar, Wikidata shows that there is a Spanish wikipedia article ... created by apparently the same editor, in April 2009 - one of his only 10 edits on that Wikipedia, 2006-2009.
Some of the content, if sourced, might fit into Anachronism, but that article has no mention of this phenomenon (on a quick scan for "nomenclature" or "name").
It's slightly sad to see an interesting article disappear, but there seem no grounds on which this article ought to be appearing in our encyclopedia. I suggest that the time has come to delete it. Pam D 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
feel like I have come across discussion on this, though I cannot recall exactly when or where). I don't think this qualifies under WP:DELREASON#6 as a neologism, because the article is about the concept as opposed to the term. It might however qualify under WP:DELREASON#7 (
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed). Even then, I am tempted to go with an WP:IAR keep, because I honestly think that the existence of this article improves Wikipedia (even in its current, unsourced state). It might be appropriate to change the title, but I have no suggestion as to what the new title should be in that case. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Back in my day, we called it "hard rock." Hair metal is a retroactive nomenclature. We didn't call it hair metal then, but it sure is called that now.), but I would like to draw your attention to this source, which says
We can look back on past actions of others and interpret what they did as an act of self-improvement, but if the concept of self-improvement did not exist yet, can what they did accurately be characterized as self-improvement? (Bochner, 1994) Nevertheless, this type of retroactive nomenclature says something about the attitudes that have prevailed since the beginning of the Twentieth Century.I also found not one, but two uses of the term "retroactive nomenclature" to mean retronym. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
*Delete, doesn't pass NFOOTY or GNG.--
Mvqr (
talk)
13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Fenix down: might be eligible for 'speedy keep' as the nominator has voted keep Spiderone 10:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promotion the director. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [ ✉] 10:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The three non-primary sources presently used are already WP:RUNOFTHEMILL articles rehashing press releases. A WP:BEFORE resulted in no source that could match GNG's "significant coverage" requirement. Furthermore, half of the article is unsourced and written non-neutrally. IceWelder [ ✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
(emphasis mine)There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No reason given for nomination Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Arunjithp ( talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
wife of Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson, but doesnt seem very notable in her own right Rathfelder ( talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Emmanuelle in Space. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial sources Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 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. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Could be merged to M-1#List of Recent and Upcoming M-1 Global events as an ATD, but I think that would make the article too long. Recent ones are already covered there, so this is partially a duplicate. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
basement store no more notable than any other walk-in store in NYC. does not pass GNG. Sources primarily about Stockman, (like e.g. the Texas Tribune source) only mention the center in passing. Sources like IBTimes are unreliable. The UCLA source only mentions the center in passing in two sentences. the mention in Reason Magazine is just a short three minute snippet, it is not significant coverage. Ysangkok ( talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete does not seem to pass WP:NCORP to merit its own article. Graywalls ( talk) 18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge to Compassion & Choices. And/or elsewhere as desired. Sandstein 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:NORG failure. Graywalls ( talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is consensus he is notable, at minimum, for his work in academia. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBUILD. The claim about being the first skyscraper in South Beach is unsourced, as are the claims of notable residents. Even if these were true, I don't think they'd confer notability on the building. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Non notable film, nothing except youtube videos and film database sites showing up in a WP:BEFORE search. Donaldd23 ( talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
An article that is about a WP:NORG failing organization that is only covered in the context of one event which fails WP:NEVENT. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. There is an obit in the Chicago Tribune ( [47]) but that's all the sustained coverage I could find and since he was from Chicagoland it's arguably local coverage. Not to be confused with George Elrick. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Interviews are generally not considered sources which establish notability. However, there is clearly enough dissension that closing as delete would not be appropriate. No prejudice to a renomination in hopes for a broader discussion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The article has been expanded since, but I am afraid this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject received a minor award and is a CEO of a minor company, the coverage is in passing and not in-depth or is obviously written by the subject or her representatives like the bio-blurb at [48] (a site of a company she works for). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania#District 17. The arguments for notability as a politician are weak. The arguments for keeping as an author are stronger, but there's still rough consensus that he's not quite over the threshold of notability independent from his book. The "redirect" closure recognizes this. Editors are free to change the redirect target to the book if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention last night, but that's not a notability criteria. He's an underdog in the November general election. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I DISAGREE. We should at least wait until after the election to decide whether or not to delete this page. After all, if he gets elected then he will be notable enough that we'd just have to recreate this page if it's deleted. - Seanr451 ( talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
OMG I’m sorry but I don’t know how to do this... I’ll read all the primers when I get back to my desktop and can also log an account. The fact the ADMIN writes “underdog” shows bias right there, and the fact he requested deletion just hours after the RNC speech is suspicious, sorry. I saw the speech, a day later heard something on-air so decided to google sean parnell, and couldn’t find a wiki page. The fact that he was a scheduled 5min speaker, when AOC only got a minute, he wasn’t some fly-by video testimonial, and his speech was indeed about inclusiveness, something this ADMIN deleted in his biased showing of non-inclusiveness. I respect the ADMIN’s Grand Wizard wiki mod-status but please stick to sticks & balls... (again MY APOlOGIES for newbie errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7400:66CA:4588:D34A:1923:3AA1 ( talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The OMG comment above is from me. Question,,, as part of my update that Sean is a relevant topic given his speech at the RNC Convention, I also tried to include a link to the PBS video and the aforementioned one-sentence description of the speech. Question to the Admin making changes, If a link and "approved" description of OutLaw Platoon can be included, why can't a link and description of his speech? Lastly, the webform said article "edits" were not required to have a summary of changes, so I didn't on three subsequent small edits correcting name and some character deletions which for some reason the Admin didn't seem to appreciate (about to read primers now but adhd is already kicking in at the prospect,,, :( LucaGrauman ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Previously WP:PRODded and PROD withdrawn. An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non- WP:RS) IMdb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even so much as the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:AUTHOR. The two reviews are by defunct and apparently unreliable sources, and the award for which she (he?) was nominated is from Reviewers International, for which I can find no trace. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
A programming list of syndicated non orignial programming. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:NTELEVISION. Meets WP:NOTTVGUIDE // Timothy :: talk 04:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Adam Maxwell. Redirect as WP:ATD. If the author is not notable, we can discuss that at a separate AfD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Article about a book that does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. MapleSoy ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This private school with no evidence of coverage or being accredited or such seems to fail WP:NORG. Previously prodded by User:PKT in 2012, deprodded by the creator, hasn't been improved since. Other languages are a bit longer but not much and the coverage is either missing or, from what I can Google Translate, very sparse too. Can this be rescued? Also, the biography of the school creator, Kiko da Silva looks very bad but it, at least, has better interwikis (if anyone here speaks Spanish etc. and would care to comment on whether that bio should stay or if it needs its own AfD, that would be appreciated too). But as for this school, at best, I think we could redirect it to his bio? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It is conceivable that his company is notable, but clear that he individually not. 30 under 30 is a pr award, and does not indicate even importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. That's a hell of a thorough nom statement, and zero opposition to it. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
One of over a million charities in the US. [53] Human rights in Bangladesh is a worthy cause, but that doesn't make the charity notable.
Of the cited sources, only Star Weekend Magazine is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Christian Science Monitor contains only one sentence about Drishtipat, which profiled itself (note the use of "our" and "we") and responded to facile interview questions in Culture Connect, the magazine that is the main subject of the CSM article. The Daily Star doesn't mention Drishtipat. The remaining four sources are written by Drishtipat or its executive director, Asif Saleh. (Coincidentally, the Wikipedia article was written by an Asifsaleh.)
Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, found brief mentions, but only one other piece of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source: India West published an article on 8 February 2002 about a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area, attended by about 200 people, that raised $9,000.
Drishtipat's tax exempt status was revoked in 2014 for failure to file tax forms for three consecutive years. [54] Its 2010 filing showed revenue of about $54,000. By contrast, notable human rights charities Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International respectively reported revenue of $42 million and $37 million that year. It seems Drishtipat never got big enough to attract significant attention by the world at large.
Promotional article containing much unsourced content about a well-meaning but non-notable organization. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
1) Fails WP:NOTABILITY, 2) the history section is just a quote (the link to which is dead), 3) a before search turned up zero sources, 4) the official page link under external links is dead. Kingdom(Hearts)Come ( talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)