![]() |
The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY - has not yet played in a fully professional league. ... discospinster talk 23:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not seeing any sources that use this term in this way. Rusf10 ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Clear consensus bordering WP:SNOW to keep. Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Borderline advert; I see no indication that this subject meets the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 23:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ezra Levant. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
After removing all the self-sourced material, there was nothing left apart from coverage of the cartoons controversy. I went looking for sources to remedy that and came up blank. I am not convinced this website is actually notable. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is the subject passes NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is completely unsourced and does not demonstrate notability. The only sources I could find were brief notations on lists of football players: [6], [7], [8]. I'm not particularly experienced with WP:NFOOTBALL, so I suppose it's possible that he meets that, but it doesn't really seem like it. Aerin17 ( talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline;
Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline; and
...as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.The sources found decidedly fail WP:SPORTCRIT, so it does not matter at all that he trivially passes the football project's criteria since those are strictly subordinate to NSPORT. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Prodded by User:Rogermx with "Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage, claim of notability not robust." and removed without explanation as usual. Article just paraphrases the paragraph in the source which is not significant coverage or evidence of notability; I couldn't find any other sources. Reywas92 Talk 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Proded by User:Serial Number 54129 with "It is not a locality, but a house ( [9]): fails WP:GEOLAND." and removed without explanation. Source on page also calls it an estate/house, and coordinates point to Warnford. No indication of notability. Reywas92 Talk 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. It has not been the subject of extended analysis and its only extant coverage consists of minor directory listings: this paragraph and the listing quoted nearly in full in the References. The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 22:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to James Cary (writer). Sandstein 07:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMEDIA. Unsourced for over a decade and I was unable to find anything in my searches. There may be some print sources that I can't access/find. De-PROD'd by Andrew Davidson without a reason. Anarchyte ( talk • work) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP brochure article. Native advertising. NO blp refs!! Sock. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2018-08 ✍️ create
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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Routine profile and annoucement references for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2019-11 ✍️ create
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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Potentially notable composer, but very very poor references for a BLP. scope_creep Talk 20:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not seem notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP most sources are just mentions or funding announcements. Sanketio31 ( talk) 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Referring to iFood, the book notes: "The app is a marketplace for restaurants in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico delivering over four million orders monthly from 15,000 restaurants to final consumers. iFood became a synonym of food delivery in Brazil." The book notes on page 94: "Movile launched several other apps during this phase with different success levels. The other remarkable success was iFood. Launched in 2014, it became the absolute leader in Brazil and is currently present in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. Today, 80% of meals delivered via apps in Brazil are done via the iFood platform (Marzochi 2016)." The book discusses on page 98 that mergers and acquisitions with other local apps "fueled" "its path to leadership". Those apps included Hello Food, Papa Rango, and Central Delivery.
https://bjopm.emnuvens.com.br/bjopm/article/view/427 notes, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." This means the article is free content.
The journal article notes:
One of the best-known apps is the Brazilian iFood (it’ll will be called iF), launched in 2011, which gives its users access to the restaurants closest to their location, menus, photos, prices, comments and notes about dishes already ordered. The company's forecast is to reach 5 million orders served in 2017. ... Based on materiality theories and the concept of distributed cognition, it was proposed to analyze the iFood and UberEats applications.
In the introduction to the iFood app, there is a suggestion that the location feature be activated to find the restaurants closest to the client. It is worth mentioning that this is only possible due to the material resources of the application with geolocalizers. The second step inside the app is the per-mission to receive notifications in order to notify the customer when the request has been confirmed. Once again, the story speaks, since without satellite connections from the servers there would be no communication between iFood and restaurants. After selecting these initial settings, the client visualizes the content in a red and white interface, divided into “Next”, “Japanese”, “Snack” and “Pizzas” categories. At the top, there is still a search field in case you want to type the name of a specific place. As an example, if we click on pizza, the app will show us a list with different places, their logos, the distance of each one of them and the average delivery time. It is worth noting that in iFood not all dishes have a photo, a materiality that can, indeed, be decisive for the choice between certain types of food. On the right hand side are the ratings of other customers, with a score of up to five stars, and it generates an overall average of all those who have left their opinions. Unlike the iFood website, in the application it is not possible to read users’ comments, but only see the number of stars. In the subsection “Best rated”, there are only establishments with a mark higher than 4.5. It is worth pointing out that this tool is used as a surveillance and punishment resource (Foucault, 1997), with differences in the disciplinary societies described by Foucault.
... It is also worth mentioning that iFood has the “Discover” field divided into “Promotion”, “Newbies here”, “Free delivery”, “Best value for money”, “Trendy”, and “Close to you” subsections. With these divisions, it is noticed that the materialities of the application, that is, the way it is divided, can totally change the course of those who were interested in Japanese food and, by selecting the field “Promotion”, end up opting for Arab food. Or even the layout of the content increases the possibilities of a particular customer, causing him to discover the food of some establishment that never appears by selecting the subsection “ Tá na moda” or “ Novatos por aqui”. The materiality of iFood also allows tracking the client’s eating habits, since the design of the application makes a history of what has already been consumed. This data can be used by both the app developers to perfect it and by the customers, who keep records of what they have already eaten.
The article notes (from Google Translate): "Alone, iFood already received more than 600 thousand orders per day in 2019. ... While governments took isolation measures, iFood fired messages encouraging couriers to get out more. ... On March 16 and 17, when states and municipalities were already taking steps to encourage the isolation of the population, iFood fired at least five messages encouraging couriers to work harder. ... Images like a deliveryman sunk to his knees in a sea of mud during a storm in Belo Horizonte, crossing the flood with the iFood backpack on his back without any protection, show the precariousness to which they are subjected."
The article notes (from Google Translate): "The first term searched on the Google Trends platform was 'iFood', which led to the indication of the most searched phrases by Internet users with this term, such as "iFood coronavirus", "iFood portal enter" and "iFood cadastr company". ... [discussion about how iFood receives over 600,000 orders every day in 2019] ... In a decision taken by the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT), companies such as iFood and Rappi, the latter that also works with food service, should not interrupt the payment of the delivery man who was contaminated by the Coronavirus."
The article notes, iFood, which serves 7.2m customers a month, has grown to a valuation of more than $1bn, making it a “unicorn”. ... Until 18 months ago, restaurants on iFood were responsible for delivery. Today, 20% of its orders are delivered by iFood — meaning restaurants that have never done takeaways before can list on the platform. Using artificial intelligence, iFood has even started to predict orders, allowing restaurants to prepare dishes before customers have got in touch. ... These innovations have enabled iFood to reduce delivery times from an average of 40 minutes to 28. ... IFood made sales of £123.8m last year, an increase of 91.9%, driven by a doubling of orders. It is 16 times the size of its nearest competitor."
The article notes, "Lockdown measures have drawn more demand for delivered food in Latin America's largest economy. Brazil's iFood is the market leader, followed by Colombia's Rappi and Uber, which are larger companies but more prominent in other countries."
MercoPress and Reuters called iFood the "market leader".
The Times said of iFood, "It is 16 times the size of its nearest competitor."
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Promo type content fails NMUSIC Sanketio31 ( talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-Notable Author with no significant work. No in-depth, independent, reliable source. Sonofstar ( talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews( WP:NAUTHOR#3). — MarkH21 talk 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) EpicPupper 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
As noted in cleanup tags on the article, this article has multiple issues; there are no reliable sources (all lead to the product's website/documentation), the article uses second person inappropriately, and a slew of other issues. I re-nominated this as the previous AFD did not include any votes (only comments), and WP:CONSENSUS was not reached (withdrawn by nominator). EpicPupper 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Female Furies. Sandstein 07:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Coverage seems limited to plot summaries and passing mentions on junk listicles from what I can see. The two non-primary sources in the article contain nothing relevant. TTN ( talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The disagreement here is about whether the sources cited by Omegatron are sufficient to support an article in the light of our applicable rules such as WP:GNG. This is a matter of editorial judgment and not something that I can decide by fiat. But I can determine that a sufficiently strong majority of experienced editors think that the sources are insufficient to establish rough consensus for deletion. The three sentences that make up the article can be undeleted (please ask another admin) for a merger to Bryan Caplan, if that is desired. Sandstein 07:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This has been a redirect since 2017 due to lack of support in reliable independent sources. It's recently been reinstated, but the sources were terrible. Most of it was drawn from the inventor himself, Bryan Caplan, on his blog, or material published on the Liberty Fund's websites (Caplan is associated with them). The substantive content was blog posts (including Patheos and Wordpress blogs). What remains after the obviously unreliable are removed, is a couple of namechecks - and that is exactly representative of the level of traction this idea actually has. While Caplan has been assiduously promoted and his opinion (usually primary-sourced) added to large numbers of Wikipedia articles, he is not, in fact, a significant thought leader in economics, he's just a garden variety libertarian think-tanker.
I do not think that this term, with its 139 unique Google hits, is an independently notable subject, and I do not think that adding any number of namechecks and affiliated primary sources can fix that. As a purported term of art in economics, the academic literature is the indicator of whether this is taken seriously. As far as I can tell, it is not. All I can find in remotely serious economic sites is self-published materials and the occasional essay. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
role reversal, which Rapoport attributed to Carl Rogers, is listening carefully and empathetically enough to be able to state the other's position to the other's satisfaction, and vice versa.For that matter, take the Carl Sagan passage referenced earlier:
Towards the end of the course, students select a range of wildly controversial social issues in which they have major emotional investments. Paired two-by-two they prepare for a succession of end-of-semester oral debates. A few weeks before the debates, however, they are informed that it is the task of each to present the point of view of the opponent in a way that's satisfactory to the opponent—so the opponent will say, "Yes, that's a fair presentation of my views."How is the distinction between that and this more than a gimmick? XOR'easter ( talk) 22:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was merge to Drip irrigation. Sandstein 07:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Article is about a product that was invented in 2007, but no longer produced Here is an article about the invention. It never seemed to catch on and I don't believe it is notable. user:DGG suggested that it be merged to drip irrigation, I respectfully disagree. I just don't think the product is notable enough to even be mentioned there. Rusf10 ( talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Possible covert UPE article on a non notable Dj who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search only led me to self published and user generated unreliable sources such as this & this Celestina007 ( talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is significant coverage in the Guardian and Newsday, so it comes down to WP:ORGIND. This is ultimately a subjective criterion, and the broad consensus here is that the sources are indeed independent. It may be advisable to start a WP:RM to move it to J. T. Allum and Company or similar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company announcements or information provided by the company or announcements or interviews, etc. We don't doubt the existence of the company, only whether it meets our requirements for establishing notability. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Feuchtmayer. ✗ plicit 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Rusf10 ( talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No sources found, no evidence that this term is widely used. Rusf10 ( talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that Orlando has an actual financial district. By the article's own admission, it doesn't exist. Rusf10 ( talk) 17:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 17:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Previously deleted page with nothing major improvements. Fails GNG Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. However, sourcing in the article as of right now needs substantial improvement. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC not enough available coverage. Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The book has an entry about the Guo Brothers.
The book notes, "Born in Peking, China, Guo brothers Yue and Yi followed the footsteps of their father, a singer and erhu (Chinese violin) player, and studied China's folk and classical musical traditions. They mastered many instruments in spite of their extreme poverty (at one stage the brothers were forced to pay for their music lessons with cooking oil). ... while Yi played the sheng (Chinese mouth organ) with the Peking Film Orchestra, with whom he recorded over 200 soundtracks. In 1983, Yue moved to England to study at London's Guildhall School of Music. Soon afterwards his brother joined him and together they formed the Guo Brothers group, that also featured Chinese percussion."
The book has an entry called "Guo Brothers". The book notes that Guo Yi was born in 1954. Raised in "a musicians' courtyard in Beijing", he was a musical pupil in the middle of the Cultural Revolution with his brother, Guo Yue, who was born in 1958. He and his brother immigrated to London at the beginning of the 1980s. The duo "built up a following busking in Covenant Garden". They subsequently composed film scores for The Killing Fields and The Last Emperor. Guo Yi's musical instrument is the sheng, "an ancient Chinese mouth organ".
The book notes, "In the UK, the Guo Brothers, Yi and Yue, two classically trained instrumentalists, have worked in a range of formats since their arrival in 1974. Guo Yi plays sheng, a portable mouth-blown organ, of which he was a prominent soloist with the Peking Film Orchestra, while the flautist Guo Yue is a former member of the Chinese Army Orchestra. Both formidable musicians, the Guos worked their way up from busking in London's Covent Garden to participating in the creation of the score to Bertolucci's film The Last Emperor and making solo albums such as 'Yuan', on the Virgin-owned Real World label."
The article notes, "WOMAD tour by the Guo brothers—Guo Yue, who plays Chinese flutes, and Guo Yi, specializing in the sheng, a hand-held mouth organ. Yuan, the Guo Brothers' recording on the Real World label, offers an excellent sampling of their music for Western listeners. It combines Chinese classical music, with its delicacy and grace, and lively folk songs that bear the stamp of the many outside influences absorbed into the long-standing traditional Chinese Han culture. Traditional melodies, in some cases transposed from works made famous by other instruments such as the lute-like pipa, are arranged in a manner that proudly displays their origins while modernizing their interpretation. ..."
The book notes: "When Guo Yue's was a young boy in China, his father, a respected musician, died. His mother was sent away, the result of the Cultural Revolution. Guo Yue and his brother, Guo Yi, grew up in a Beijing ghetto, a musicians' compound where they learned to play a variety of musical instruments. ... Yi became expert with the ancient sheng (a handheld mouth organ). ... Yi became involved with film, eventually composing hundreds of soundtracks.
The book has an entry about the Guo Brothers. The book notes: "Guo Yue and Guo Yi with the help of their sister Yan formed one of China's famous folk musical ensembles in the 1980s and went on to record their music and work on music soundtracks. Since then, they have performed at various venues and festivals throughout Wales, including the Sherman Theatre Cardiff and the Pontardawe International Folk Festival."
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help)The article notes, "Two Chinese brothers, Guo Yi and Guo Yue, are wonderfully astonished at their new popularity, for exploration and exposition of Chinese Folk Music on flue and sheng (a mini pipe-organ, blown): forlorn bending pentatonic wails, mimetic virtuosity."
The book notes: "The Guo Brothers (Guo Yue and Guo Yi) come from a musical family, and distinguished themselves as young woodwind players in official Chinese orchestras. After leaving China, their musical horizons have broadened, but still reflect the austerity and poise of their native traditions."
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR not enough coverage. Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet software notability and general notability. When I search online, I see only the project home page and no external coverage at all. Anton.bersh ( talk) 17:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Doboj ethnic cleansing (1992). TheSandDoctor Talk 00:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Zero sources. While there certainly were clashes in Doboj during the time period claimed here, it is dubious that these clashes constituted a siege, and whether they merit an article at all is in question. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
*Delete a search for the Serbo-Croat term doesn’t even produce unreliable sources.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. It's almost 20 years since the match was played and there's not much in the way of long-term notability about the match aside from one article in the Grimsby Telegraph. This isn't notable in the same way as other giant-killing articles we have here. Due to this, I believe the article should be deleted. NapHit ( talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Three-way split between keep, merge and delete, each with good arguments. I'd normally go for merge as a compromise, but here there are also valid arguments against a merger given the length of the target article. Sandstein 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary page which is just a collection of matches Liverpool played in European competition. We already have an article detailing Liverpool's record in Europe. We don't need to include every single match they've played in Europe because the page is an overview and not a collection of stats. That article has been through the featured article process where it was decided such tables are superfluous. The reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of stats, so this page is unnecessary and should be deleted. NapHit ( talk) 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan– neither of these are true - the only reason the second might be satisfied is because there's so much of information here in this specific article), but rather an integral way of displaying encyclopaedic data related to European football matches. SportingFlyer T· C 22:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Supergroup" lacking significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability. Meatsgains( talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Not very notable, certainly doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Highest award that isn't a jubilee medal is Order of Red Star (certainly not qualifier for notability), reliable estimates indicate ~28 kills as sniper, certainly not notable either. No indication of wartime media coverage, later media coverage and information is scant. Doesn't even have Russian wikipedia article, not even clear if she is currently alive or not. PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Defunct translator station, does not meet WP:BCAST guidelines for notability. An IP address deproded this, claiming it was "clearly notable", am I missing something? Rusf10 ( talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was closed; the article has been moved to draftspace by the article creator, User:2002Alice. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
No claim of significance, unverifiable. An upcoming film made by two students. Neither the film nor the people involved with it have been mentioned in a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
"made by two students" is completely mistaken. My client is a certified actor and it is completely unnecessary to call him a student. In which part of the article is there a self promotion? The Article is completely impartial. what I want is that it be moved to draft and that is not excluded. 2002Alice (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sonofstar ( talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable, fail to pass GNG. Sonofstar ( talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP: NSongs. Only presents one good source, Hot New Hip Hop. XXL magazine only mentions the song was one of their favorites of the week, while Times of India only mentions the video and cites lyrics of the song. Entering charts doesn't mean a song is notable. The rest of the article is composed of album reviews and "self-interested parties" such as a manager and producers. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 14:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Promotional article for a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and only became famous for accusing a Clergyman of rape. A before search centers around her accusing the clergyman of rape but she is never never discussed with in-depth significant coverage. The sources used in the article are all unreliable as they are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete with only one of the keep votes being grounded in any guideline Fenix down ( talk) 07:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL never having played at the professional level as stated at WP:FPL One appearance on the bench (unused) in Serie A in 2018/19, currently 4th tier in Italy. Not finding GNG in this case. JW 1961 Talk 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This company no longer exists (and it failed WP:GNG when it did). It was bought and merged into Central Smith, itself a non-notable dairy with one location near Peterborough Ontario. Lard Almighty ( talk) 11:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a city councilman of Charlotte NC which does not pass WP:NPOL. The subject is not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP tagged for notability in the NPP queue for two months. Notability is doubtful - although there are sources there isn’t in-depth coverage. The article seems promotional. There is reference to academic roles but these don’t pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra ( talk) 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Insufficient discussion on sources for a strong consensus to exist at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No references, online search doesn't produce any proof of subject passing WP:GNG. Highly likely a paid-for article. Nearlyevil665 ( talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This article concerns an acting school in Los Angeles, California. Since the article's creation in 2006, it has cited no sources. BEFORE searches do not return any meaningful coverage of the school as this was the only source I found. Thus I do not believe this article can pass WP:GNG or any more specific notability guideline.
For anyone else who goes searching for sources, please note that there is a similar theatre in New Hampshire that does not appear to be related to this school. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Article about a television "micro-series" (that thing where advertisers format their advertising as short-format "drama" or "comedy" series instead of conventional 30-second commercials), not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Things like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence is technically verified by an IMDb page -- the notability test is reliable source coverage about the show by recognized television critics to establish its significance. But the only footnote here is a press release from the network that aired it, a primary source that is not support for notability at all, and the strongest other source I can find on a WP:BEFORE search is a Q&A interview in an industry trade magazine in which one of the show's executive producers is talking about it in the first person -- which is not fully independent of the show, and thus not enough to make the show notable all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this show from having to have much more media coverage about it than this. (Also probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the producers' names in the infobox.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Realtek. Keep !votes have not provided adequate reasoning for keeping apart from WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing cogent other than unreliable sources such as this. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Info Edge. Those who wish to merge can retrieve the content from the article history. (Recommend adding {{ R from merge}} to the redirect after merging.) (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fail of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. nearlyevil 665 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Fail of WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/ WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists. The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Tall in the Trap” (Deitch/Sept. 1); “Sorry Safari” (Deitch/Oct. 1); “Buddies Thicker Than Water” (Deitch/Nov. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. We are not a catalogue of non-notable animation shorts or similar entities. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/ WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists and is a parody of Moby Dick (here's the best one). The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Calypso Cat” (Deitch/June 1); “Dicky Moe” (Deitch/July 1); “The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit” (Deitch/Aug. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable by WP:GNG. This might also have been eligible for a speedy keep per WP:SK#1, with the nominator deleting a copy-pasted nomination rational shortly after creating this AfD page. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 17:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Loads of coverage of her from before this Big Boss thing, focussed on her powerlifting and wearing of the hijab: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. I don't know what the rules are for bodybuilders specifically, but I think she's passed the general notability rules. Would consider draftifying until revised into a full article. Furius ( talk) 11:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus on WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Simply does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 TT me 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Here, the keeping arguments have not properly addressed the deletion arguments fully, so comparatively the deletion arguments weigh more. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not warrant its own article per WP:GNG. None of the sources discuss the subject in question directly. Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Relies mostly on primary sources. Throast ( talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete assuming that Spiderone's "keep" !vote is solely procedural. 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
A
WP:BEFORE search in both English and Malayalam reveals nothing besides trivial and routine coverage. Fails
WP:GNG.
YogeshWarah
Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOCKSTRIKE
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Several improvents have been made on the article which makes it passes GNG (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no RS coverage of this group. The page was the subject of a AfD in 2012 which resulted in a no-consensus. In the decade since then, no RS content has been added to the page. In short, the group does not meet notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL: Mayor-elect of a city of about 78,000. WP:PROD (within 3 hours of creation) and WP:Draftify (within a day of creation) reverted, so here we are. Closeapple ( talk) 05:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Mottezen ( talk) 18:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The sources included are either sponsored posts, primary sources, or articles where the topic is only mentioned in passing. The only good source is this: [45], and it's from 1992. There is also a user guide on google books, but I don't think it's independent from the subject. Mottezen ( talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
After nominating this article, I tried searching "omniback" on google books and got lots of results. Omniback is described in the article as the previous name of this software, before 2004. I'm now thinking that this subject is only notable historically, under a name different than the title. What should we do in this situation? Mottezen ( talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any reliable, independent sources that provide significant (or any) coverage of this music group. Either delete outright, or merge the important 10% of this article into California State University, Chico. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 04:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no evidence that a 1:6 scale model is particularly notable. Article is full of WP:OR. If it wasn't for the about.com article that is cited, I would say that the term "playscale miniaturism" is made up because it isn't used anywhere else. Rusf10 ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗ plicit 06:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GEOLAND:
Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "040333" here.
See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Unsourced and no coverage can be found outside of press releases in industry journals. Should be deleted per WP:CORP. Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Log entry:
(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Reads like an advert, full of primary-source quotes instead of facts. Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 04:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The actress does not seem noteworthy actress as per the policy WP:ENT. This article should be discussed to see if it fits. Dixiku ( talk) 00:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
has had significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. KaisaL ( talk) 14:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks to fail GNG and NMUSICIAN. There are some mentions of him out there but only in unreliable sources, and even then there is no in-depth discussion. Article is also very promotional in tone. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The person did not win a single election. Doesn't satisfy the minimum criteria set by WP:NPOL. Dixiku ( talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
"A. C. Kadlur" -wikipedia
does not yield sources not present in the article. From the sources of the article, I have only found two sources that are slightly removed from a trivial mention.
[1]
[2] However, they are not
wp:significant coverage, meaning the subject fails
WP:NPOL on top of not being elected and
WP:GNG. The combined coverage also does not make the subject satisfy
WP:BASIC.Unfortunately, there seems to be no redirect target. "XXXX Karnataka Legislative Assembly election" are invalid as there are four choices. See also
WP:XY. ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
08:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)References
![]() |
The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY - has not yet played in a fully professional league. ... discospinster talk 23:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not seeing any sources that use this term in this way. Rusf10 ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Clear consensus bordering WP:SNOW to keep. Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Borderline advert; I see no indication that this subject meets the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 23:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ezra Levant. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
After removing all the self-sourced material, there was nothing left apart from coverage of the cartoons controversy. I went looking for sources to remedy that and came up blank. I am not convinced this website is actually notable. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is the subject passes NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is completely unsourced and does not demonstrate notability. The only sources I could find were brief notations on lists of football players: [6], [7], [8]. I'm not particularly experienced with WP:NFOOTBALL, so I suppose it's possible that he meets that, but it doesn't really seem like it. Aerin17 ( talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline;
Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline; and
...as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.The sources found decidedly fail WP:SPORTCRIT, so it does not matter at all that he trivially passes the football project's criteria since those are strictly subordinate to NSPORT. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Prodded by User:Rogermx with "Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage, claim of notability not robust." and removed without explanation as usual. Article just paraphrases the paragraph in the source which is not significant coverage or evidence of notability; I couldn't find any other sources. Reywas92 Talk 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Proded by User:Serial Number 54129 with "It is not a locality, but a house ( [9]): fails WP:GEOLAND." and removed without explanation. Source on page also calls it an estate/house, and coordinates point to Warnford. No indication of notability. Reywas92 Talk 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. It has not been the subject of extended analysis and its only extant coverage consists of minor directory listings: this paragraph and the listing quoted nearly in full in the References. The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 22:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to James Cary (writer). Sandstein 07:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMEDIA. Unsourced for over a decade and I was unable to find anything in my searches. There may be some print sources that I can't access/find. De-PROD'd by Andrew Davidson without a reason. Anarchyte ( talk • work) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP brochure article. Native advertising. NO blp refs!! Sock. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2018-08 ✍️ create
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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Routine profile and annoucement references for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2019-11 ✍️ create
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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Potentially notable composer, but very very poor references for a BLP. scope_creep Talk 20:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not seem notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP most sources are just mentions or funding announcements. Sanketio31 ( talk) 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Referring to iFood, the book notes: "The app is a marketplace for restaurants in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico delivering over four million orders monthly from 15,000 restaurants to final consumers. iFood became a synonym of food delivery in Brazil." The book notes on page 94: "Movile launched several other apps during this phase with different success levels. The other remarkable success was iFood. Launched in 2014, it became the absolute leader in Brazil and is currently present in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. Today, 80% of meals delivered via apps in Brazil are done via the iFood platform (Marzochi 2016)." The book discusses on page 98 that mergers and acquisitions with other local apps "fueled" "its path to leadership". Those apps included Hello Food, Papa Rango, and Central Delivery.
https://bjopm.emnuvens.com.br/bjopm/article/view/427 notes, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." This means the article is free content.
The journal article notes:
One of the best-known apps is the Brazilian iFood (it’ll will be called iF), launched in 2011, which gives its users access to the restaurants closest to their location, menus, photos, prices, comments and notes about dishes already ordered. The company's forecast is to reach 5 million orders served in 2017. ... Based on materiality theories and the concept of distributed cognition, it was proposed to analyze the iFood and UberEats applications.
In the introduction to the iFood app, there is a suggestion that the location feature be activated to find the restaurants closest to the client. It is worth mentioning that this is only possible due to the material resources of the application with geolocalizers. The second step inside the app is the per-mission to receive notifications in order to notify the customer when the request has been confirmed. Once again, the story speaks, since without satellite connections from the servers there would be no communication between iFood and restaurants. After selecting these initial settings, the client visualizes the content in a red and white interface, divided into “Next”, “Japanese”, “Snack” and “Pizzas” categories. At the top, there is still a search field in case you want to type the name of a specific place. As an example, if we click on pizza, the app will show us a list with different places, their logos, the distance of each one of them and the average delivery time. It is worth noting that in iFood not all dishes have a photo, a materiality that can, indeed, be decisive for the choice between certain types of food. On the right hand side are the ratings of other customers, with a score of up to five stars, and it generates an overall average of all those who have left their opinions. Unlike the iFood website, in the application it is not possible to read users’ comments, but only see the number of stars. In the subsection “Best rated”, there are only establishments with a mark higher than 4.5. It is worth pointing out that this tool is used as a surveillance and punishment resource (Foucault, 1997), with differences in the disciplinary societies described by Foucault.
... It is also worth mentioning that iFood has the “Discover” field divided into “Promotion”, “Newbies here”, “Free delivery”, “Best value for money”, “Trendy”, and “Close to you” subsections. With these divisions, it is noticed that the materialities of the application, that is, the way it is divided, can totally change the course of those who were interested in Japanese food and, by selecting the field “Promotion”, end up opting for Arab food. Or even the layout of the content increases the possibilities of a particular customer, causing him to discover the food of some establishment that never appears by selecting the subsection “ Tá na moda” or “ Novatos por aqui”. The materiality of iFood also allows tracking the client’s eating habits, since the design of the application makes a history of what has already been consumed. This data can be used by both the app developers to perfect it and by the customers, who keep records of what they have already eaten.
The article notes (from Google Translate): "Alone, iFood already received more than 600 thousand orders per day in 2019. ... While governments took isolation measures, iFood fired messages encouraging couriers to get out more. ... On March 16 and 17, when states and municipalities were already taking steps to encourage the isolation of the population, iFood fired at least five messages encouraging couriers to work harder. ... Images like a deliveryman sunk to his knees in a sea of mud during a storm in Belo Horizonte, crossing the flood with the iFood backpack on his back without any protection, show the precariousness to which they are subjected."
The article notes (from Google Translate): "The first term searched on the Google Trends platform was 'iFood', which led to the indication of the most searched phrases by Internet users with this term, such as "iFood coronavirus", "iFood portal enter" and "iFood cadastr company". ... [discussion about how iFood receives over 600,000 orders every day in 2019] ... In a decision taken by the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT), companies such as iFood and Rappi, the latter that also works with food service, should not interrupt the payment of the delivery man who was contaminated by the Coronavirus."
The article notes, iFood, which serves 7.2m customers a month, has grown to a valuation of more than $1bn, making it a “unicorn”. ... Until 18 months ago, restaurants on iFood were responsible for delivery. Today, 20% of its orders are delivered by iFood — meaning restaurants that have never done takeaways before can list on the platform. Using artificial intelligence, iFood has even started to predict orders, allowing restaurants to prepare dishes before customers have got in touch. ... These innovations have enabled iFood to reduce delivery times from an average of 40 minutes to 28. ... IFood made sales of £123.8m last year, an increase of 91.9%, driven by a doubling of orders. It is 16 times the size of its nearest competitor."
The article notes, "Lockdown measures have drawn more demand for delivered food in Latin America's largest economy. Brazil's iFood is the market leader, followed by Colombia's Rappi and Uber, which are larger companies but more prominent in other countries."
MercoPress and Reuters called iFood the "market leader".
The Times said of iFood, "It is 16 times the size of its nearest competitor."
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Promo type content fails NMUSIC Sanketio31 ( talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-Notable Author with no significant work. No in-depth, independent, reliable source. Sonofstar ( talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews( WP:NAUTHOR#3). — MarkH21 talk 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) EpicPupper 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
As noted in cleanup tags on the article, this article has multiple issues; there are no reliable sources (all lead to the product's website/documentation), the article uses second person inappropriately, and a slew of other issues. I re-nominated this as the previous AFD did not include any votes (only comments), and WP:CONSENSUS was not reached (withdrawn by nominator). EpicPupper 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Female Furies. Sandstein 07:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Coverage seems limited to plot summaries and passing mentions on junk listicles from what I can see. The two non-primary sources in the article contain nothing relevant. TTN ( talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The disagreement here is about whether the sources cited by Omegatron are sufficient to support an article in the light of our applicable rules such as WP:GNG. This is a matter of editorial judgment and not something that I can decide by fiat. But I can determine that a sufficiently strong majority of experienced editors think that the sources are insufficient to establish rough consensus for deletion. The three sentences that make up the article can be undeleted (please ask another admin) for a merger to Bryan Caplan, if that is desired. Sandstein 07:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This has been a redirect since 2017 due to lack of support in reliable independent sources. It's recently been reinstated, but the sources were terrible. Most of it was drawn from the inventor himself, Bryan Caplan, on his blog, or material published on the Liberty Fund's websites (Caplan is associated with them). The substantive content was blog posts (including Patheos and Wordpress blogs). What remains after the obviously unreliable are removed, is a couple of namechecks - and that is exactly representative of the level of traction this idea actually has. While Caplan has been assiduously promoted and his opinion (usually primary-sourced) added to large numbers of Wikipedia articles, he is not, in fact, a significant thought leader in economics, he's just a garden variety libertarian think-tanker.
I do not think that this term, with its 139 unique Google hits, is an independently notable subject, and I do not think that adding any number of namechecks and affiliated primary sources can fix that. As a purported term of art in economics, the academic literature is the indicator of whether this is taken seriously. As far as I can tell, it is not. All I can find in remotely serious economic sites is self-published materials and the occasional essay. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
role reversal, which Rapoport attributed to Carl Rogers, is listening carefully and empathetically enough to be able to state the other's position to the other's satisfaction, and vice versa.For that matter, take the Carl Sagan passage referenced earlier:
Towards the end of the course, students select a range of wildly controversial social issues in which they have major emotional investments. Paired two-by-two they prepare for a succession of end-of-semester oral debates. A few weeks before the debates, however, they are informed that it is the task of each to present the point of view of the opponent in a way that's satisfactory to the opponent—so the opponent will say, "Yes, that's a fair presentation of my views."How is the distinction between that and this more than a gimmick? XOR'easter ( talk) 22:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was merge to Drip irrigation. Sandstein 07:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Article is about a product that was invented in 2007, but no longer produced Here is an article about the invention. It never seemed to catch on and I don't believe it is notable. user:DGG suggested that it be merged to drip irrigation, I respectfully disagree. I just don't think the product is notable enough to even be mentioned there. Rusf10 ( talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Possible covert UPE article on a non notable Dj who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search only led me to self published and user generated unreliable sources such as this & this Celestina007 ( talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is significant coverage in the Guardian and Newsday, so it comes down to WP:ORGIND. This is ultimately a subjective criterion, and the broad consensus here is that the sources are indeed independent. It may be advisable to start a WP:RM to move it to J. T. Allum and Company or similar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company announcements or information provided by the company or announcements or interviews, etc. We don't doubt the existence of the company, only whether it meets our requirements for establishing notability. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Feuchtmayer. ✗ plicit 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Rusf10 ( talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No sources found, no evidence that this term is widely used. Rusf10 ( talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that Orlando has an actual financial district. By the article's own admission, it doesn't exist. Rusf10 ( talk) 17:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 17:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Previously deleted page with nothing major improvements. Fails GNG Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. However, sourcing in the article as of right now needs substantial improvement. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC not enough available coverage. Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The book has an entry about the Guo Brothers.
The book notes, "Born in Peking, China, Guo brothers Yue and Yi followed the footsteps of their father, a singer and erhu (Chinese violin) player, and studied China's folk and classical musical traditions. They mastered many instruments in spite of their extreme poverty (at one stage the brothers were forced to pay for their music lessons with cooking oil). ... while Yi played the sheng (Chinese mouth organ) with the Peking Film Orchestra, with whom he recorded over 200 soundtracks. In 1983, Yue moved to England to study at London's Guildhall School of Music. Soon afterwards his brother joined him and together they formed the Guo Brothers group, that also featured Chinese percussion."
The book has an entry called "Guo Brothers". The book notes that Guo Yi was born in 1954. Raised in "a musicians' courtyard in Beijing", he was a musical pupil in the middle of the Cultural Revolution with his brother, Guo Yue, who was born in 1958. He and his brother immigrated to London at the beginning of the 1980s. The duo "built up a following busking in Covenant Garden". They subsequently composed film scores for The Killing Fields and The Last Emperor. Guo Yi's musical instrument is the sheng, "an ancient Chinese mouth organ".
The book notes, "In the UK, the Guo Brothers, Yi and Yue, two classically trained instrumentalists, have worked in a range of formats since their arrival in 1974. Guo Yi plays sheng, a portable mouth-blown organ, of which he was a prominent soloist with the Peking Film Orchestra, while the flautist Guo Yue is a former member of the Chinese Army Orchestra. Both formidable musicians, the Guos worked their way up from busking in London's Covent Garden to participating in the creation of the score to Bertolucci's film The Last Emperor and making solo albums such as 'Yuan', on the Virgin-owned Real World label."
The article notes, "WOMAD tour by the Guo brothers—Guo Yue, who plays Chinese flutes, and Guo Yi, specializing in the sheng, a hand-held mouth organ. Yuan, the Guo Brothers' recording on the Real World label, offers an excellent sampling of their music for Western listeners. It combines Chinese classical music, with its delicacy and grace, and lively folk songs that bear the stamp of the many outside influences absorbed into the long-standing traditional Chinese Han culture. Traditional melodies, in some cases transposed from works made famous by other instruments such as the lute-like pipa, are arranged in a manner that proudly displays their origins while modernizing their interpretation. ..."
The book notes: "When Guo Yue's was a young boy in China, his father, a respected musician, died. His mother was sent away, the result of the Cultural Revolution. Guo Yue and his brother, Guo Yi, grew up in a Beijing ghetto, a musicians' compound where they learned to play a variety of musical instruments. ... Yi became expert with the ancient sheng (a handheld mouth organ). ... Yi became involved with film, eventually composing hundreds of soundtracks.
The book has an entry about the Guo Brothers. The book notes: "Guo Yue and Guo Yi with the help of their sister Yan formed one of China's famous folk musical ensembles in the 1980s and went on to record their music and work on music soundtracks. Since then, they have performed at various venues and festivals throughout Wales, including the Sherman Theatre Cardiff and the Pontardawe International Folk Festival."
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help)The article notes, "Two Chinese brothers, Guo Yi and Guo Yue, are wonderfully astonished at their new popularity, for exploration and exposition of Chinese Folk Music on flue and sheng (a mini pipe-organ, blown): forlorn bending pentatonic wails, mimetic virtuosity."
The book notes: "The Guo Brothers (Guo Yue and Guo Yi) come from a musical family, and distinguished themselves as young woodwind players in official Chinese orchestras. After leaving China, their musical horizons have broadened, but still reflect the austerity and poise of their native traditions."
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR not enough coverage. Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet software notability and general notability. When I search online, I see only the project home page and no external coverage at all. Anton.bersh ( talk) 17:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Doboj ethnic cleansing (1992). TheSandDoctor Talk 00:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Zero sources. While there certainly were clashes in Doboj during the time period claimed here, it is dubious that these clashes constituted a siege, and whether they merit an article at all is in question. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
*Delete a search for the Serbo-Croat term doesn’t even produce unreliable sources.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. It's almost 20 years since the match was played and there's not much in the way of long-term notability about the match aside from one article in the Grimsby Telegraph. This isn't notable in the same way as other giant-killing articles we have here. Due to this, I believe the article should be deleted. NapHit ( talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Three-way split between keep, merge and delete, each with good arguments. I'd normally go for merge as a compromise, but here there are also valid arguments against a merger given the length of the target article. Sandstein 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary page which is just a collection of matches Liverpool played in European competition. We already have an article detailing Liverpool's record in Europe. We don't need to include every single match they've played in Europe because the page is an overview and not a collection of stats. That article has been through the featured article process where it was decided such tables are superfluous. The reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of stats, so this page is unnecessary and should be deleted. NapHit ( talk) 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan– neither of these are true - the only reason the second might be satisfied is because there's so much of information here in this specific article), but rather an integral way of displaying encyclopaedic data related to European football matches. SportingFlyer T· C 22:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Supergroup" lacking significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability. Meatsgains( talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Not very notable, certainly doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Highest award that isn't a jubilee medal is Order of Red Star (certainly not qualifier for notability), reliable estimates indicate ~28 kills as sniper, certainly not notable either. No indication of wartime media coverage, later media coverage and information is scant. Doesn't even have Russian wikipedia article, not even clear if she is currently alive or not. PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Defunct translator station, does not meet WP:BCAST guidelines for notability. An IP address deproded this, claiming it was "clearly notable", am I missing something? Rusf10 ( talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was closed; the article has been moved to draftspace by the article creator, User:2002Alice. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
No claim of significance, unverifiable. An upcoming film made by two students. Neither the film nor the people involved with it have been mentioned in a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
"made by two students" is completely mistaken. My client is a certified actor and it is completely unnecessary to call him a student. In which part of the article is there a self promotion? The Article is completely impartial. what I want is that it be moved to draft and that is not excluded. 2002Alice (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sonofstar ( talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable, fail to pass GNG. Sonofstar ( talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP: NSongs. Only presents one good source, Hot New Hip Hop. XXL magazine only mentions the song was one of their favorites of the week, while Times of India only mentions the video and cites lyrics of the song. Entering charts doesn't mean a song is notable. The rest of the article is composed of album reviews and "self-interested parties" such as a manager and producers. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 14:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Promotional article for a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and only became famous for accusing a Clergyman of rape. A before search centers around her accusing the clergyman of rape but she is never never discussed with in-depth significant coverage. The sources used in the article are all unreliable as they are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete with only one of the keep votes being grounded in any guideline Fenix down ( talk) 07:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL never having played at the professional level as stated at WP:FPL One appearance on the bench (unused) in Serie A in 2018/19, currently 4th tier in Italy. Not finding GNG in this case. JW 1961 Talk 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This company no longer exists (and it failed WP:GNG when it did). It was bought and merged into Central Smith, itself a non-notable dairy with one location near Peterborough Ontario. Lard Almighty ( talk) 11:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a city councilman of Charlotte NC which does not pass WP:NPOL. The subject is not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP tagged for notability in the NPP queue for two months. Notability is doubtful - although there are sources there isn’t in-depth coverage. The article seems promotional. There is reference to academic roles but these don’t pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra ( talk) 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Insufficient discussion on sources for a strong consensus to exist at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No references, online search doesn't produce any proof of subject passing WP:GNG. Highly likely a paid-for article. Nearlyevil665 ( talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This article concerns an acting school in Los Angeles, California. Since the article's creation in 2006, it has cited no sources. BEFORE searches do not return any meaningful coverage of the school as this was the only source I found. Thus I do not believe this article can pass WP:GNG or any more specific notability guideline.
For anyone else who goes searching for sources, please note that there is a similar theatre in New Hampshire that does not appear to be related to this school. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Article about a television "micro-series" (that thing where advertisers format their advertising as short-format "drama" or "comedy" series instead of conventional 30-second commercials), not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Things like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence is technically verified by an IMDb page -- the notability test is reliable source coverage about the show by recognized television critics to establish its significance. But the only footnote here is a press release from the network that aired it, a primary source that is not support for notability at all, and the strongest other source I can find on a WP:BEFORE search is a Q&A interview in an industry trade magazine in which one of the show's executive producers is talking about it in the first person -- which is not fully independent of the show, and thus not enough to make the show notable all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this show from having to have much more media coverage about it than this. (Also probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the producers' names in the infobox.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Realtek. Keep !votes have not provided adequate reasoning for keeping apart from WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing cogent other than unreliable sources such as this. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Info Edge. Those who wish to merge can retrieve the content from the article history. (Recommend adding {{ R from merge}} to the redirect after merging.) (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Fail of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. nearlyevil 665 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Fail of WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/ WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists. The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Tall in the Trap” (Deitch/Sept. 1); “Sorry Safari” (Deitch/Oct. 1); “Buddies Thicker Than Water” (Deitch/Nov. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. We are not a catalogue of non-notable animation shorts or similar entities. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/ WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists and is a parody of Moby Dick (here's the best one). The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Calypso Cat” (Deitch/June 1); “Dicky Moe” (Deitch/July 1); “The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit” (Deitch/Aug. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable by WP:GNG. This might also have been eligible for a speedy keep per WP:SK#1, with the nominator deleting a copy-pasted nomination rational shortly after creating this AfD page. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 17:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Loads of coverage of her from before this Big Boss thing, focussed on her powerlifting and wearing of the hijab: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. I don't know what the rules are for bodybuilders specifically, but I think she's passed the general notability rules. Would consider draftifying until revised into a full article. Furius ( talk) 11:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus on WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Simply does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 TT me 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Here, the keeping arguments have not properly addressed the deletion arguments fully, so comparatively the deletion arguments weigh more. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not warrant its own article per WP:GNG. None of the sources discuss the subject in question directly. Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Relies mostly on primary sources. Throast ( talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete assuming that Spiderone's "keep" !vote is solely procedural. 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
A
WP:BEFORE search in both English and Malayalam reveals nothing besides trivial and routine coverage. Fails
WP:GNG.
YogeshWarah
Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOCKSTRIKE
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider)
16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Several improvents have been made on the article which makes it passes GNG (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no RS coverage of this group. The page was the subject of a AfD in 2012 which resulted in a no-consensus. In the decade since then, no RS content has been added to the page. In short, the group does not meet notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL: Mayor-elect of a city of about 78,000. WP:PROD (within 3 hours of creation) and WP:Draftify (within a day of creation) reverted, so here we are. Closeapple ( talk) 05:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Mottezen ( talk) 18:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The sources included are either sponsored posts, primary sources, or articles where the topic is only mentioned in passing. The only good source is this: [45], and it's from 1992. There is also a user guide on google books, but I don't think it's independent from the subject. Mottezen ( talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
After nominating this article, I tried searching "omniback" on google books and got lots of results. Omniback is described in the article as the previous name of this software, before 2004. I'm now thinking that this subject is only notable historically, under a name different than the title. What should we do in this situation? Mottezen ( talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any reliable, independent sources that provide significant (or any) coverage of this music group. Either delete outright, or merge the important 10% of this article into California State University, Chico. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 04:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no evidence that a 1:6 scale model is particularly notable. Article is full of WP:OR. If it wasn't for the about.com article that is cited, I would say that the term "playscale miniaturism" is made up because it isn't used anywhere else. Rusf10 ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗ plicit 06:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GEOLAND:
Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "040333" here.
See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Unsourced and no coverage can be found outside of press releases in industry journals. Should be deleted per WP:CORP. Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Log entry:
(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Reads like an advert, full of primary-source quotes instead of facts. Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 04:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The actress does not seem noteworthy actress as per the policy WP:ENT. This article should be discussed to see if it fits. Dixiku ( talk) 00:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
has had significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. KaisaL ( talk) 14:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks to fail GNG and NMUSICIAN. There are some mentions of him out there but only in unreliable sources, and even then there is no in-depth discussion. Article is also very promotional in tone. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The person did not win a single election. Doesn't satisfy the minimum criteria set by WP:NPOL. Dixiku ( talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
"A. C. Kadlur" -wikipedia
does not yield sources not present in the article. From the sources of the article, I have only found two sources that are slightly removed from a trivial mention.
[1]
[2] However, they are not
wp:significant coverage, meaning the subject fails
WP:NPOL on top of not being elected and
WP:GNG. The combined coverage also does not make the subject satisfy
WP:BASIC.Unfortunately, there seems to be no redirect target. "XXXX Karnataka Legislative Assembly election" are invalid as there are four choices. See also
WP:XY. ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
08:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)References