![]() |
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This article may not meet the general notability guidelines. It is true that this Amiga emulator stands out as the only emulator licensed to distribute copies of the Kickstart ROM, and it is certainly well-known to the Amiga community, but I have not been able to find much coverage on the subject elsewhere. Of what I was able to find, the vast majority did come from mainstream publications dedicated to computers or video games, but a lot of these were just passing mentions or tutorials on how to run Amiga software on modern PCs, although some of them were reviews or announcements of newly released versions of Amiga Forever.
Never mind some of the issues troubling this article. One copyrighted image is enough, but two seems unnecessary, and all of its three sources are primary. The article lies on the boundary of being or not being notable, but I am more inclined to believing that it is not. I had the same issue a few months back with DX-Ball, a former article that I marked for deletion (a shame since I played that a lot, but that problem seems to be common with earlier freeware games). Similary, I would argue that UAE (emulator) is not notable and could simply be merged into this article in the event that it is kept, because this separately released software is included in the Amiga Forever package. I doubt that this article should be kept, but given its notability among Amiga enthusiasts, I cannot say where it should be merged. Amiga, Inc. since it licensed the software to distribute the Kickstart ROM? Kickstart (Amiga) since it is technically still being sold by this means as of this post? I would like some help on deciding the future of the article. Free Media Kid$ 23:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Several previous discussions [2] [3] [4] support redirecting Turkish village stubs to the District article if they are sourced only to Koyumuz. However, these two redirects were reverted because they have a second source which briefly mentions them being populated by Kurds. I believe that this passing mention is insufficient to justify a standalone article, therefore I propose that Yenitaşköprü and Paşakonağı be redirected to Düzce district. (I had proposed these at WP:RfD and was, well, redirected here because this is a question of whether or not a standalone article should exist.) – dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Law of persons in South Africa#Testate succession. ✗ plicit 01:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar. The topic is not by itself notable, but anything useful here could probably be merged with Fetal rights. Mako001 ( talk) 16:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
22:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. I can confirm that the articles are the same. Geschichte ( talk) 18:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG quite clearly, only having a handful of minor mentions in local Italian media, and meeting no other notability criterion. PK650 ( talk) 22:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:18, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:13, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:11, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:08, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2012-03 ✗
G12
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. ✗ plicit 00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:05, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2009-02 ✗
A7
← 2009-02 ✗
G12
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. ✗ plicit 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Already listed at List of Delhi Public School Society schools. Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 21:59, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The argument for deletion focused on WP:CRYSTAL, which discourages articles on future events unless they are "almost certain to take place". However, it does allow for articles about some future events, particularly if "speculation about it [is] well documented". The keep argument holds that that is the case here, as supported by multiple news sources. The closely related Next Indian general election article was a near-unanimous "keep" in a 2019 AfD on the same basis. The main distinction here is that the article specifies 2024 as the year of the elections, which is somewhat less certain, but concerns about details of article title and content are not typically accepted as good reasons for deletion (with some exceptions, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:TNT, which were not argued here). So "keep" appears to have the stronger argument from policy and past practice, as well as the majority in the comments. RL0919 ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Article is a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. No elections are currently scheduled in India for 2024. All the elections listed are of uncertain date as they may be called early (hence why the titles of all the elections linked are 'Next ... election', not '2024 ... election'). Was prodded (and misleading content around claimed 2024 elections removed), but prod removed and misleading info reinstated by article creator without explanation. Number 5 7 09:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
References
The president of BJP's Maharashtra unit Chandrakant Patil made it clear on Wednesday that his party has no intentions of going into an alliance with the Shiv Sena for the 2024 Assembly elections as the latter had betrayed then after the 2019 polls.
Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole has said his party aimed to win the largest number of seats in the Assembly polls scheduled for 2024 in the state.
According to observers, Mr. Tawde's elevation, seen in the context of rehabilitation of Mr. Fadnavis' political rivals, signals that the latter's candidacy for the Chief Minister's post in the 2024 Assembly election is by no means certain nor is it to be taken for granted.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is prepared to battle against the alliance of Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena and come out winners in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, said senior party leader Sudhir Mungantiwar.
The Shiv Sena on Thursday said the party will contest the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections in alliance with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) "in the interest of the state", days after Maharashtra Congress president Nana Patole announced that his party will go solo in the polls.
References
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary D. Purandeswari on Monday said that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had given clear directions to the party cadres in Andhra Pradesh to go ahead with an action plan to capture the power in 2024 Assembly elections.
In a day of swift and dramatic developments, former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, on Friday, vowed not to reenter the state Assembly till after the 2024 elections.
He also noted that the AP BJP unit was lagging behind in projecting the party as an alternative to the regional parties. He asked BJP leaders to try and get the party to power in the 2024 general elections.
JanaSena chief Pawan Kalyan made an early prediction in the context of the forthcoming Andhra Pradesh elections. He predicts a drastic downfall of the YCP government in Andhra Pradesh. [...] There are a little over two and a half years for the elections and it remains to be seen if Pawan Kalyan's prediction will turn to reality.
Kanna further said that their party is working with the target of coming into power in the next 2024.
Friends turned foes TDP and BJP are all set to join hands again in Andhra Pradesh to take on ruling YSRCP in upcoming 2024 Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
21:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete trivia without reliable sources or evidence of notability per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Unreliable sources. No proven notability. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Routine coverage, no meaningful coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Being for spamming only. No encyclopedic value. Peltamukkah ( talk) 19:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nothing to merge, as the sole mayor is listed in East Providence, Rhode Island's infobox. ✗ plicit 02:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
List article for just one person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. per consensus, WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NACTOR, she had only one significant role on a Nickelodeon series back in the 1990s. Pahiy ( talk) 18:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Topos show neither name nor much of anything here until the 1980s, when an industrial complex and a rail spur coming off the railroad appear. This complex is a paper mill. GNIS is sourced to a county highway map. Searching is rather difficult because of the ubiquity of Kraft and Kraft-Heinz food products and Kraft paper, but I'm not finding evidence that there was a notable community here, besides the paper mill and the rail spurl. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Evidence of legal recognition has been provided and consensus is that it's enough to meet WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Village fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition or significant coverage. Sourcing consists of maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. – dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
fails WP:NACTOR , she has got only one significant role. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 13:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Nothing more than interview and PR if you read these non-reliable sources closely. Behind the moors ( talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-05 (closed as ✗ delete)
2021-11 ✍️ create
← 2021-05 ✗ deleted
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:MMABIO as he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the featherweight top 10 by sherdog or fightmatrix. Also fails WP:GNG as his main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
[1] is not significant coverage, all it says about him is: |
Three-time world champion in combat sambo, world champion in pankration, vice-champion of Europe in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Sergei Grechikho spoke about his preparation for the fight against Magomed Idrisov at M-1 Challenge 61.And Lithuanian uses Latin script, so I don't see how translation is an issue here. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK1: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 2pou ( talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no other RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jaipur. The concensus is clearly to delete, but the suggested redirect seems appropriate PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
←
2011-04 N. G. Vartak High School Staff (closed as ✗ delete)
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. ✗ plicit 00:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:05, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
The result was keep. There were 85 school AFDs in the same day, so it's not good use of time to wait for a broader consensus to develop. Geschichte ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
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. ✗ plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:56, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 01:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 01:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 01:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
No sources, no information, and no notability. Philosophy2 ( talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus is that the available sources are not sufficient to count towards notabilty. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
After a BEFORE search, I could find nothing to substantiate the notability of this photographer. Two of the citations are unverifiable; the third is her own website. No SIGCOV in reliable sources. Yes, she has had photographs published in magazines, but her work is not in the collection of notable museums; her work is not regarded as important nor widely cited by her peers; has not originated a new technique or concept and is not part of a notable collective body of work. Apparently, she won an award in 2009, from "The Clothes Show Live" but I have been unable to verify this per RS. Not sure if this award is notable; it is not in the same realm as a Guggenheim, NEA, Tiffany grant or the like which we often find with notable artists. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST nor WP:BASIC. The article was created by a single purpose account WP:SPA. Bringing it here to seek the input of other editors in the community. Netherzone ( talk) 18:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give it a week for folks to find sources, although if
Vexations can't, not sure anyone can
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
All current sources appear to fail WP:RS. I did some searching, and the few sources I found that might be credible fail WP:SIGCOV. Ffranc ( talk) 09:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as soft delete, re-opened by request of
VocalIndia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted per CSD G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users). (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable singer, lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Fails WP:GNG DMySon ( talk) 14:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. Absolutely 0% chance of deletion, regardless of time passed. Nominator's point is also irrelevant as there is much more than one source. Geschichte ( talk) 14:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a BLP and the notability is severely questioned having only one connected source. A merge to a relevant main article would not be questioned as an WP:ATD Otr500 ( talk) 13:18, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 14:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Article shows no evidence of notability. Its only reference is a link to the subject's own website. Even if it were properly referenced, I struggle to see how this could be considered notable, since it's just a local field house hosting rec leagues and other local events. Frankly astonished this article been around for well over a decade! JonnyDKeen ( talk) 13:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find independent reliable sources that support notability of the subject. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to MTN Group. North America 1000 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Reference are routine annoucements. This is the last of these 7 articles made up 4 were csd'd, one was proded, 1 is at Afd for del and this. scope_creep Talk 11:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The film should not be a mainspace article until principal photography commences per WP:NFF. No sources to back up the film title or poster. Existing draft article at Draft: Untitled Insidious sequel should be edited and improved until filming commences instead. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 11:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
*Draftify Film will definitely be notable closer to release, merging or deleting would lose the history. No need to start over once it's released.
DonaldD23
talk to me 22:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Changing vote to Delete per KaitoNkmra23
DonaldD23
talk to me
12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber). The consensus is to merge. Note that no consensus has been formed herein about renaming the merge target article, which can be discussed further at Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) if desired. North America 1000 14:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This topic seems to fail WP:GNG. Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Amber#Merge_from_The_Pattern_(The_Chronicles_of_Amber)_and_The_Logrus ended with no consensus. The Pattern might, just might, be notable (see Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber)#Notability) but The Logrus is not. I am afraid there is little to do here now other than just to decide where to merge the tiny reception section added recently (sadly, IMHO, not sufficient to warrant keeping this due to coverage being in passing and failing WP:SIGCOV) followed by a redirect (either to The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) or The Chronicles of Amber...). My preference would be The Pattern and then renaming that article into The Pattern and the Logrus. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:46, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Has two live sources, one of which it appears to plagarise, the other of which is a corporate press release so not independent. No other independent media coverage. IdiotSavant ( talk) 09:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was No consensus on a merger target. There is no consensus to delete this text, however there is also no clear consensus on what the ideal merge target would be, if it's not kept as a standalone. It does not appear clear that a consensus is forthcoming, and the best location between List of Hitler bells, St._Jacob's_Church,_Herxheim_am_Berg or remaining as is does not require continuation in this format and can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 22:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a stub article about a church bell dedicated to Hitler, written in 2018 when it was in the news because the local council voted to keep it. This isn't sustained coverage. It's already mentioned in Herxheim am Berg. asilvering ( talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 11:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People should also discuss a possible merger with the new
List of Hitler bells, which is currently wrongly labeled a dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 17:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a really notable topic. The lead calls it a "political campaign" but that's really overselling it; while strategic voting amongst left-leaning voters in Canada undeniably exists, it exists as a state of mind rather than an organized effort. For instance, the 2015 election's ABC campaign apparently consisted of "several websites" and "thousands of grass-roots volunteers"— which is not really much of anything.
The exception to this is the 2008 election, which did have a major, notable, organized effort led by the Premier of Newfoundland— but that event can be covered just as well on the relevant pages ( 2008 Canadian federal election, Danny Williams (politician), etc). As it stands, this page is taking one notable political event and using it to suggest a wider, broader, more notable "movement" than really exists. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination . Update #3. There have been too many modifications to the disambiguation article for this AfD nomination to make any sense at this time. Please close AfD as withdrawn.
Platonk (
talk)
21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Previous: There are only two entries. See
WP:DISAMBIG. In this case, this disambiguation page is being used as a bandaid to [attempt to] straighten out what remains as confusions in other articles and redirects.
Bedessa (a mispelling) is a redirect that points to
Badessa, whereas there is another article with the same spelling
Bedessa (Wolaita), a place in the same country but nowhere near the other. Someone should straighten out all those articles and redirects which use the wrongly spelled entry (there are several) rather than relying on a disambiguation page. But either way, this disambiguation page is being for something
WP:DISAMBIG never intended it to be used for. Update #1: I cleaned up the mess including fixing the typo in three articles and two templates (transcluded into numerous other articles). I fixed the hatnotes in
Badessa and
Bedessa (Wolaita), and identified two more redirects now needing deletion,
Bedessa &
Bedessa (Wolaita) (disambiguation), that were created in misguided attempts to solve this mess.
Platonk (
talk)
18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. It is also very promotional and subject to WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 08:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Not notable, fails GNG -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 05:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Unreferenced list with no assertion of notability. Why is it significant that a game has ray-tracing, a technique that comes standard on modern GPUs and is getting more common by the day? Without an affirmative answer to this question, this falls under WP:NOTDIR. This is not a defining feature of video games that warrants a list. Axem Titanium ( talk) 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
*Delete An article created a year before this one was deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games with ray tracing. I did a full history export to
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_ray_tracing Anyway, this was once a notable feature when it first came out, ample coverage was found in the previous AFD talking about it, but now its rather common so not a defining feature.
Dream Focus
05:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Bloated, overly detailed step-by-step description: e.g. The driver drives into the parking lot (15:16:07), parks the car (15:16:30) and opens the front door (15:16:46). Also, anything worthwhile in the background section can go into the main article, if it isn't already there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article, since these relations are not very special. Philosophy2 ( talk) 03:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no possible way that there are enough relations for this article to exist. Philosophy2 ( talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:19, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable gymnast. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Goyston talk, contribs 03:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. The topic "Azerbaijani cemeteries damaged in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" has not received any coverage as a topic within reliable sources, either in the provided citations or in a WP:BEFORE search (this discounts coverage in unreliable sources per WP:RSP such as the Daily Sabah). Damaged cemeteries have been mentioned, but these mentions tend to be passing and occur within a broader discussion on the conflict and so are not sufficient to establish this as a topic on its own.
Further, this appears to be a WP:POVFORK of List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; while the latter has dubious notability and should probably be taken through AFD again, that doesn't permit this fork to exist. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clear consensus against a standalone page; if there is sourced content that is merge-worthy, I would be willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone interested in developing it. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Other than being somebody's mother, subject has no notability. Described here as an "actress" yet does not even have an IMDb entry. The section titled "Career" is mostly about her family life. Dolloneal ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jumeirah Lake Towers. ✗ plicit 00:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I can find no reliable sources--only the advertisements of real estate companies
Beware--do not try to find the actual official site -- the archives.org link given ,which i have now removed from the displayed version, does not work, and a direct search goes to malware. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This article may not meet the general notability guidelines. It is true that this Amiga emulator stands out as the only emulator licensed to distribute copies of the Kickstart ROM, and it is certainly well-known to the Amiga community, but I have not been able to find much coverage on the subject elsewhere. Of what I was able to find, the vast majority did come from mainstream publications dedicated to computers or video games, but a lot of these were just passing mentions or tutorials on how to run Amiga software on modern PCs, although some of them were reviews or announcements of newly released versions of Amiga Forever.
Never mind some of the issues troubling this article. One copyrighted image is enough, but two seems unnecessary, and all of its three sources are primary. The article lies on the boundary of being or not being notable, but I am more inclined to believing that it is not. I had the same issue a few months back with DX-Ball, a former article that I marked for deletion (a shame since I played that a lot, but that problem seems to be common with earlier freeware games). Similary, I would argue that UAE (emulator) is not notable and could simply be merged into this article in the event that it is kept, because this separately released software is included in the Amiga Forever package. I doubt that this article should be kept, but given its notability among Amiga enthusiasts, I cannot say where it should be merged. Amiga, Inc. since it licensed the software to distribute the Kickstart ROM? Kickstart (Amiga) since it is technically still being sold by this means as of this post? I would like some help on deciding the future of the article. Free Media Kid$ 23:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Several previous discussions [2] [3] [4] support redirecting Turkish village stubs to the District article if they are sourced only to Koyumuz. However, these two redirects were reverted because they have a second source which briefly mentions them being populated by Kurds. I believe that this passing mention is insufficient to justify a standalone article, therefore I propose that Yenitaşköprü and Paşakonağı be redirected to Düzce district. (I had proposed these at WP:RfD and was, well, redirected here because this is a question of whether or not a standalone article should exist.) – dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Law of persons in South Africa#Testate succession. ✗ plicit 01:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar. The topic is not by itself notable, but anything useful here could probably be merged with Fetal rights. Mako001 ( talk) 16:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
22:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. I can confirm that the articles are the same. Geschichte ( talk) 18:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG quite clearly, only having a handful of minor mentions in local Italian media, and meeting no other notability criterion. PK650 ( talk) 22:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:18, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 23:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:13, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:11, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:08, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2012-03 ✗
G12
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. ✗ plicit 00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:05, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2009-02 ✗
A7
← 2009-02 ✗
G12
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. ✗ plicit 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Already listed at List of Delhi Public School Society schools. Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 21:59, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The argument for deletion focused on WP:CRYSTAL, which discourages articles on future events unless they are "almost certain to take place". However, it does allow for articles about some future events, particularly if "speculation about it [is] well documented". The keep argument holds that that is the case here, as supported by multiple news sources. The closely related Next Indian general election article was a near-unanimous "keep" in a 2019 AfD on the same basis. The main distinction here is that the article specifies 2024 as the year of the elections, which is somewhat less certain, but concerns about details of article title and content are not typically accepted as good reasons for deletion (with some exceptions, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:TNT, which were not argued here). So "keep" appears to have the stronger argument from policy and past practice, as well as the majority in the comments. RL0919 ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Article is a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. No elections are currently scheduled in India for 2024. All the elections listed are of uncertain date as they may be called early (hence why the titles of all the elections linked are 'Next ... election', not '2024 ... election'). Was prodded (and misleading content around claimed 2024 elections removed), but prod removed and misleading info reinstated by article creator without explanation. Number 5 7 09:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
References
The president of BJP's Maharashtra unit Chandrakant Patil made it clear on Wednesday that his party has no intentions of going into an alliance with the Shiv Sena for the 2024 Assembly elections as the latter had betrayed then after the 2019 polls.
Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole has said his party aimed to win the largest number of seats in the Assembly polls scheduled for 2024 in the state.
According to observers, Mr. Tawde's elevation, seen in the context of rehabilitation of Mr. Fadnavis' political rivals, signals that the latter's candidacy for the Chief Minister's post in the 2024 Assembly election is by no means certain nor is it to be taken for granted.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is prepared to battle against the alliance of Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena and come out winners in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, said senior party leader Sudhir Mungantiwar.
The Shiv Sena on Thursday said the party will contest the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections in alliance with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) "in the interest of the state", days after Maharashtra Congress president Nana Patole announced that his party will go solo in the polls.
References
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary D. Purandeswari on Monday said that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had given clear directions to the party cadres in Andhra Pradesh to go ahead with an action plan to capture the power in 2024 Assembly elections.
In a day of swift and dramatic developments, former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, on Friday, vowed not to reenter the state Assembly till after the 2024 elections.
He also noted that the AP BJP unit was lagging behind in projecting the party as an alternative to the regional parties. He asked BJP leaders to try and get the party to power in the 2024 general elections.
JanaSena chief Pawan Kalyan made an early prediction in the context of the forthcoming Andhra Pradesh elections. He predicts a drastic downfall of the YCP government in Andhra Pradesh. [...] There are a little over two and a half years for the elections and it remains to be seen if Pawan Kalyan's prediction will turn to reality.
Kanna further said that their party is working with the target of coming into power in the next 2024.
Friends turned foes TDP and BJP are all set to join hands again in Andhra Pradesh to take on ruling YSRCP in upcoming 2024 Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
21:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete trivia without reliable sources or evidence of notability per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Unreliable sources. No proven notability. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Routine coverage, no meaningful coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Being for spamming only. No encyclopedic value. Peltamukkah ( talk) 19:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nothing to merge, as the sole mayor is listed in East Providence, Rhode Island's infobox. ✗ plicit 02:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
List article for just one person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. per consensus, WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NACTOR, she had only one significant role on a Nickelodeon series back in the 1990s. Pahiy ( talk) 18:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Topos show neither name nor much of anything here until the 1980s, when an industrial complex and a rail spur coming off the railroad appear. This complex is a paper mill. GNIS is sourced to a county highway map. Searching is rather difficult because of the ubiquity of Kraft and Kraft-Heinz food products and Kraft paper, but I'm not finding evidence that there was a notable community here, besides the paper mill and the rail spurl. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Evidence of legal recognition has been provided and consensus is that it's enough to meet WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Village fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition or significant coverage. Sourcing consists of maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. – dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
fails WP:NACTOR , she has got only one significant role. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 13:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Nothing more than interview and PR if you read these non-reliable sources closely. Behind the moors ( talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-05 (closed as ✗ delete)
2021-11 ✍️ create
← 2021-05 ✗ deleted
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:MMABIO as he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the featherweight top 10 by sherdog or fightmatrix. Also fails WP:GNG as his main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
[1] is not significant coverage, all it says about him is: |
Three-time world champion in combat sambo, world champion in pankration, vice-champion of Europe in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Sergei Grechikho spoke about his preparation for the fight against Magomed Idrisov at M-1 Challenge 61.And Lithuanian uses Latin script, so I don't see how translation is an issue here. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK1: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 2pou ( talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no other RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jaipur. The concensus is clearly to delete, but the suggested redirect seems appropriate PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
←
2011-04 N. G. Vartak High School Staff (closed as ✗ delete)
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. ✗ plicit 00:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:05, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:02, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
The result was keep. There were 85 school AFDs in the same day, so it's not good use of time to wait for a broader consensus to develop. Geschichte ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
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. ✗ plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 00:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:56, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 01:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 01:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 01:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
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. ✗ plicit 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as
a trainwreck)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
No sources, no information, and no notability. Philosophy2 ( talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus is that the available sources are not sufficient to count towards notabilty. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
After a BEFORE search, I could find nothing to substantiate the notability of this photographer. Two of the citations are unverifiable; the third is her own website. No SIGCOV in reliable sources. Yes, she has had photographs published in magazines, but her work is not in the collection of notable museums; her work is not regarded as important nor widely cited by her peers; has not originated a new technique or concept and is not part of a notable collective body of work. Apparently, she won an award in 2009, from "The Clothes Show Live" but I have been unable to verify this per RS. Not sure if this award is notable; it is not in the same realm as a Guggenheim, NEA, Tiffany grant or the like which we often find with notable artists. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST nor WP:BASIC. The article was created by a single purpose account WP:SPA. Bringing it here to seek the input of other editors in the community. Netherzone ( talk) 18:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give it a week for folks to find sources, although if
Vexations can't, not sure anyone can
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
All current sources appear to fail WP:RS. I did some searching, and the few sources I found that might be credible fail WP:SIGCOV. Ffranc ( talk) 09:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as soft delete, re-opened by request of
VocalIndia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted per CSD G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users). (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable singer, lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Fails WP:GNG DMySon ( talk) 14:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. Absolutely 0% chance of deletion, regardless of time passed. Nominator's point is also irrelevant as there is much more than one source. Geschichte ( talk) 14:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a BLP and the notability is severely questioned having only one connected source. A merge to a relevant main article would not be questioned as an WP:ATD Otr500 ( talk) 13:18, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 14:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Article shows no evidence of notability. Its only reference is a link to the subject's own website. Even if it were properly referenced, I struggle to see how this could be considered notable, since it's just a local field house hosting rec leagues and other local events. Frankly astonished this article been around for well over a decade! JonnyDKeen ( talk) 13:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find independent reliable sources that support notability of the subject. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to MTN Group. North America 1000 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Reference are routine annoucements. This is the last of these 7 articles made up 4 were csd'd, one was proded, 1 is at Afd for del and this. scope_creep Talk 11:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The film should not be a mainspace article until principal photography commences per WP:NFF. No sources to back up the film title or poster. Existing draft article at Draft: Untitled Insidious sequel should be edited and improved until filming commences instead. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 11:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
*Draftify Film will definitely be notable closer to release, merging or deleting would lose the history. No need to start over once it's released.
DonaldD23
talk to me 22:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Changing vote to Delete per KaitoNkmra23
DonaldD23
talk to me
12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber). The consensus is to merge. Note that no consensus has been formed herein about renaming the merge target article, which can be discussed further at Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) if desired. North America 1000 14:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This topic seems to fail WP:GNG. Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Amber#Merge_from_The_Pattern_(The_Chronicles_of_Amber)_and_The_Logrus ended with no consensus. The Pattern might, just might, be notable (see Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber)#Notability) but The Logrus is not. I am afraid there is little to do here now other than just to decide where to merge the tiny reception section added recently (sadly, IMHO, not sufficient to warrant keeping this due to coverage being in passing and failing WP:SIGCOV) followed by a redirect (either to The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) or The Chronicles of Amber...). My preference would be The Pattern and then renaming that article into The Pattern and the Logrus. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:46, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Has two live sources, one of which it appears to plagarise, the other of which is a corporate press release so not independent. No other independent media coverage. IdiotSavant ( talk) 09:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was No consensus on a merger target. There is no consensus to delete this text, however there is also no clear consensus on what the ideal merge target would be, if it's not kept as a standalone. It does not appear clear that a consensus is forthcoming, and the best location between List of Hitler bells, St._Jacob's_Church,_Herxheim_am_Berg or remaining as is does not require continuation in this format and can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 22:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a stub article about a church bell dedicated to Hitler, written in 2018 when it was in the news because the local council voted to keep it. This isn't sustained coverage. It's already mentioned in Herxheim am Berg. asilvering ( talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 11:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People should also discuss a possible merger with the new
List of Hitler bells, which is currently wrongly labeled a dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 17:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a really notable topic. The lead calls it a "political campaign" but that's really overselling it; while strategic voting amongst left-leaning voters in Canada undeniably exists, it exists as a state of mind rather than an organized effort. For instance, the 2015 election's ABC campaign apparently consisted of "several websites" and "thousands of grass-roots volunteers"— which is not really much of anything.
The exception to this is the 2008 election, which did have a major, notable, organized effort led by the Premier of Newfoundland— but that event can be covered just as well on the relevant pages ( 2008 Canadian federal election, Danny Williams (politician), etc). As it stands, this page is taking one notable political event and using it to suggest a wider, broader, more notable "movement" than really exists. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination . Update #3. There have been too many modifications to the disambiguation article for this AfD nomination to make any sense at this time. Please close AfD as withdrawn.
Platonk (
talk)
21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Previous: There are only two entries. See
WP:DISAMBIG. In this case, this disambiguation page is being used as a bandaid to [attempt to] straighten out what remains as confusions in other articles and redirects.
Bedessa (a mispelling) is a redirect that points to
Badessa, whereas there is another article with the same spelling
Bedessa (Wolaita), a place in the same country but nowhere near the other. Someone should straighten out all those articles and redirects which use the wrongly spelled entry (there are several) rather than relying on a disambiguation page. But either way, this disambiguation page is being for something
WP:DISAMBIG never intended it to be used for. Update #1: I cleaned up the mess including fixing the typo in three articles and two templates (transcluded into numerous other articles). I fixed the hatnotes in
Badessa and
Bedessa (Wolaita), and identified two more redirects now needing deletion,
Bedessa &
Bedessa (Wolaita) (disambiguation), that were created in misguided attempts to solve this mess.
Platonk (
talk)
18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 10:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. It is also very promotional and subject to WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 08:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Not notable, fails GNG -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 05:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Unreferenced list with no assertion of notability. Why is it significant that a game has ray-tracing, a technique that comes standard on modern GPUs and is getting more common by the day? Without an affirmative answer to this question, this falls under WP:NOTDIR. This is not a defining feature of video games that warrants a list. Axem Titanium ( talk) 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
*Delete An article created a year before this one was deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games with ray tracing. I did a full history export to
https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_ray_tracing Anyway, this was once a notable feature when it first came out, ample coverage was found in the previous AFD talking about it, but now its rather common so not a defining feature.
Dream Focus
05:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Bloated, overly detailed step-by-step description: e.g. The driver drives into the parking lot (15:16:07), parks the car (15:16:30) and opens the front door (15:16:46). Also, anything worthwhile in the background section can go into the main article, if it isn't already there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article, since these relations are not very special. Philosophy2 ( talk) 03:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no possible way that there are enough relations for this article to exist. Philosophy2 ( talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:19, 12 December 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. ✗ plicit 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable gymnast. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Goyston talk, contribs 03:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. The topic "Azerbaijani cemeteries damaged in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" has not received any coverage as a topic within reliable sources, either in the provided citations or in a WP:BEFORE search (this discounts coverage in unreliable sources per WP:RSP such as the Daily Sabah). Damaged cemeteries have been mentioned, but these mentions tend to be passing and occur within a broader discussion on the conflict and so are not sufficient to establish this as a topic on its own.
Further, this appears to be a WP:POVFORK of List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; while the latter has dubious notability and should probably be taken through AFD again, that doesn't permit this fork to exist. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clear consensus against a standalone page; if there is sourced content that is merge-worthy, I would be willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone interested in developing it. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Other than being somebody's mother, subject has no notability. Described here as an "actress" yet does not even have an IMDb entry. The section titled "Career" is mostly about her family life. Dolloneal ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jumeirah Lake Towers. ✗ plicit 00:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I can find no reliable sources--only the advertisements of real estate companies
Beware--do not try to find the actual official site -- the archives.org link given ,which i have now removed from the displayed version, does not work, and a direct search goes to malware. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)