![]() |
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Passing mentions, listacles and a few localized publications doesn't meet GNG.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. No sources provided and searches find no support from any RS.
The original creator notes on their Userpage that "promoting the "Liverpool Tart" confection which he discovered in a village web-site" which clearly suggests a non-notable recipe.
A mention on a National Trust site and an inclusion in a recipe blog site both appear to be almost direct copies of this article. Without evidence of dates for the external sites, it is possible that the copying may be from those sites to Wikipedia in which case it would also be a copy-vio.
Even if this is an accepted recipe in some other sources, there is nothing here to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 15:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
PROD removed without explanation. My rationale: These are just tour dates, based on a few web pages that announce the announcements and on the subject's own website. Tours are notable per WP:NTOUR, and that is not met here--not even remotely. Drmies ( talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:49, 14 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 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable. Term used once in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, in the entry on Léon Brunschvicg. Web search also yielded only results that use the term, rather than define it. Paradoctor ( talk) 23:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nothing presented here convinces me this subject passes WP:GNG. Fails GNG.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus, with No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. Still believe it fails WP:NFILM. LibStar ( talk) 23:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Notability not established with significant sources for specific name-brand product. Links are where to buy it and a short listicle item among 50 other lures; fails WP:NPRODUCT. Reywas92 Talk 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The article notes: "1) Little Cleo. She was a hootchie-kootchie girl who for 43 years had her dancer’s image stamped on the back of a fishing lure. A New York City songwriter named Charlie Clark saw Little Cleo perform during the 1930s; when he developed this popular spoon with its wiggling, dancing action in 1953, she became its namesake. In 1996 a female employee of a major retailer took offense at the dancer’s image on the lure, and for the sake of newfound political correctness, the image was removed by Acme Tackle of Rhode Island, the current manufacturer. Little Cleo spoons are thick in proportion to their surface area, so they fish relatively deep. This makes them a favorite trout spoon, but in sizes ranging from 1/16 to 11/4 ounce, they’re suitable for everything from panfish to steelhead and stripers."
The article notes: "For 43 years, Little Cleo spoons had the image of an exotic dancer stamped on the back. The spoons were first introduced in 1953 by the Seneca Tackle Co. in New York, which was started two years earlier by a songwriter and music publisher named C.V. “Charlie” Clark. He named the spoons the “Little Cleo” after a woman he watched perform in the 1930s. Clark believed the wiggling and dancing of the lure would bewitch the fish much like Little Cleo’s dance had mesmerized him."
The article notes: "18 Little Cleo. This is a great all-around spoon that I find myself using most often forcasting in a trout pond or lake. The comparatively thick body means it fisheswell at medium depths. Most important, though, my favorite ¼-ounce, hammered brass-and-red version sinks quickly as I wait and then wait some more before retrieving. It’s a deadly secret for deep-dwelling brook trout in early summer.acmetackle.com. SPECIES: [TROUT] [SALMON] [STEELHEAD] [SALTWATER]"
The article notes: "• Little Cleo: When Charlie Clark, a songwriter and producer, introduced this lure in 1953, he named it after an exotic dancer he had watched perform. He thought the spoon had the same mesmerizing moves as the dancer. A likeness of a scantily clad dancer was even printed on the back of the original spoons. It was removed years later after Clark’s company was sold to Acme and the latter business received complaints from a female employee of a major retailer."
The article notes: "The Little Cleo is considered a classic and still being sold, but no longer with the dancing girl's image stamped on the back, except in a collector's edition kit."
The article notes: "1. LITTLE CLEO: A spoon first made in 1953. A favorite trout spoon, but suitable for everything from panfish to striped bass. For 43 years, the spoon had an image of a dancing girl stamped on the back before it was removed in 1996 when a retailer complained." The article says Field & Stream is the source.
The book notes: "Acme's Little Cleo quickly became a favorite when salmon fishing ignited in the Great Lakes almost 30 years ago, and it remains a favorite of many trout and salmon fans there. Its hump-back shape makes it wiggle through the water like a fat bait fish—a meal big fish just can't resist."
The book notes on page 198: "Salmon not only strike bait, but also on occasion lures. Two of the most popular ones in this region are the Hotshot and Little Cleo. The book notes on page 200, "As for the Little Cleos, you will see them fished where anglers have a large concentration of salmon swimming around in a pocket of water in a non-snatching section (such as beneath the power plant in the Oswego River). Here, fishermen cast Cleos with rather low expectations of a salmon actually chasing and striking the lure. ..."
The article notes: "These baits come in a crazy number of shapes, but we’ll narrow our selection to one of the most popular choices: the Acme Little Cleo. ♦ CONSTRUCTION: Although the paint will become chipped and the hook will need to be replaced from time to time, this bait is basically indestructible."
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non notable game, website links dont work (even though it says archive) and the only proof i could find of it's existence is https://github.com/swisspol/WaterRace. Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Article is largely based on Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No embassies, agreements, level of trade is very low. Article states "There are no relevant development aid flows". LibStar ( talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The arguments for redirecting the article fell flat. ✗ plicit 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Estonia did not participate in the 2018 Winter Paralympics. -- Sangjinhwa ( talk) 22:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to Handbook for Mortals. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
While the book and associated gaming of the bestseller list is Notable, the author is not. Notability is not inherited. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete as WP:TOOSOON. Could be recreated if there is additional coverage to establish notability in the future. RL0919 ( talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Extremely WP:TOOSOON article of an emerging artist; the notability claim is that they "promoted vaccination through coloring books" (the website credits them by Instagram handle, not by name). Sources are local news and their high school website. They're probably going places! But they have't got there, yet.
Relevant article history, for full disclosure: I put a PROD on this, which was reverted by the original editor, who gave this as the reason: "Deletion is not accepted since the artist has credible sources to support her journey as an artist. The artist is seen in her local newspaper and performing arts center." Alas, I don't think either of those count significantly towards notability. asilvering ( talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment (nom): article used incorrect pronouns, which I just noticed (pronouns given on artist's instagram); I've edited this AfD and I'll get to the article in a second.
Comment: Newspapers are credible and artists are difficult to be seen as notability without books but online resources are just as reliable. If the artist did not have newspapers about her it would not be credible but it does. This artist deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia for being involved not only in her community but school. CSUCI's reports on her are credible since it is a real school and the local newspaper is seen by over one million residents which is reliable. The local newspaper is credible to keep this artist on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxnardgirl ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
What if they had an apocalypse and nobody came? That seems to be the issue here: I can't read the Boston Globe article, but it seems to be dismissive, judging from the headline. Everything else seems to be a mixture of references to buttress uncontroversial statements and in-world fringe publications. Unlike some of these end-of-the-world prophecies it looks as though this one never caught the attention of the outside world. So I'm seeing notability issues on top of the too-much-fringe-detail issues. Mangoe ( talk) 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a big mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Almost all of the citations are opinion pieces, and the ones that aren't tend to mention specific games, in which case any controversy about said boob physics could be covered on the relevant pages. Jtrainor ( talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This was the first revision of the article prior I removed all promotional material. The subject of the article is a Nigerian businessman / entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search shows me user generated sources, some sources in reputable media but the byline reads “editor” which is indicative of a sponsored post, a before also shows press releases and mere announcements. For example see this a sponsored post, see this note the byline says “editor” indicative of a guest editor which invariably means it is sponsored. An untrained new page reviewer might not catch this, but this article is a blatant ADMASQ on a non notable businessman who is trying to get a Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus against deletion. Discussion to merge with utility room can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This lacks so much noteability that most wikis don't even have a page for it. It hasn't had any kind of notability references pretty much since it's creation, and has sat in it's current condition for pretty much a decade. Time for it to go. Jtrainor ( talk) 20:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:Author. Cookbook and advice column author with next to zero coverage. Per LOC, just one of many 'Prudence Penny' authors. Cause for no consensus in 2010 (nominated by page creator) was having ~50 copies of a cookbook being catalogued in WorldCat. Star Garnet ( talk) 21:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting soft-delete close per
request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 19:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I am unable to find evidence they meet any elements of N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 19:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. His only claim to notability in the article is for a position that was uncredited. The only source being used is IMDB which, on top of not being a reliable source, also lists all but one of his positions as also being "uncredited". I searched for any additional sources using the names "Newell Sparks", "William Newell Sparks" and "William Sparks" and was unable to find any kind of reliable sources discussing the individual. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The article makes no claim of any significant impact the individual has had, and there are only passing mentions in reliable sources — failing BASIC. I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the book he co-authored, apart from a review from insideBIGDATA — does not meet NAUTHOR. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE search returns a few WP:ROUTINE mentions in statistical databases and a few forum posts, but no significant coverage whatsoever. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct minor company. No independent sources. This is not encyclopedic. Marquardtika ( talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. I note that while participation each time has been low, five different editors (including nominators and commenters) in three AFDs have argued that this subject is not notable, and no one has argued that it is. RL0919 ( talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Soft delete, restored after request at WP:REFUND (courtesy @ Muboshgu:, will manually notify IP). No issue with any of that. However, there is still no reliable source, independent coverage to establish notability. If it comes back in spring as per IP's note and if it garners coverage, it can be restored then. I would normally draftify, and not at all against that, but this seems contested so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Wonder Woman supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Was prodded twice, and deprodded each time with no actual explanation of why this article should stay. Avilich ( talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yola (singer). Redirect
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Article was created in 2008 with a "this band exists" vibe and has been flagged for better sources since 2010. From then until about 2019, their works were only visible in the typical streaming and social media services. It turns out that since 2019, one member has become far more notable on her own: Yola (singer). Now the band is occasionally mentioned in reliable media sources, but only ever as an early stop for Yola, and their works are still not gaining any notice in their own right. Meanwhile I plan to add some info about this band to Yola's article, and I think that will be sufficient. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
BEFORE yielded no significant coverage in reliable sources, outside of passing mentions about their letter (supported by only 20 scientists) in relation to COP26. It seems to fail NORG and GNG. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Colonestarrice ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NMUSIC. The article has a single source which appears to not mention the subject at all. The only things I found on the internet, were a ticket sales site, several pages that trivially mention the subject, and a paywalled article that may provide significant coverage. But I'm afraid even if it does, that's just not enough; NMUSIC required "multiple, non-trivial, published works" and GNG "stipulates that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article".
According to the article's own lead, the band might satisfy a view NMUSIC criteria but I couldn't find any sources that back this up. Colonestarrice ( talk) 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The article is just 1 paragraph that is basically a biography of what seems like a random person. Obviously fails WP:N. Philosophy2 ( talk) 06:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability, no sources. -- Corwin of Amber ( talk) 09:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus among !votes grounded in policy is that Rudyi does not meet the standards for notability (yet?). If someone wants to work on this in draft space, just ping me. Star Mississippi 22:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe the subject passes GNG - the coverage is only abut him being assigned as a head of a commission (which I suppose is not a major governing body) and as a participant of sport competition. I don't think this is enough. Less Unless ( talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. One editor found some coverage in one local newspaper, but most participants did not find this sufficient to establish notability. RL0919 ( talk) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. Acting career does not appear to be notable either. ... discospinster talk 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Northwestern College (Iowa). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with <2,000 students playing in NAIA has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92 Talk 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 08:07, 14 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 11:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Russian / Ukrainian TV series with no real coverage in reliable sources.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 11:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Nebraska Wesleyan University. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with 2,000 students playing in Division III has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92 Talk 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Proposed deletion from lack of notability. This is not a suburb as defined by Hutt City Council and it is unclear why this area is notable enough for a separate article, especially when the article has only one reference which does not appear to support the statements made in the article. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 00:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 06:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 06:26, 14 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 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
An empty article. There is no evidence of significance. One link to the official website of the organization.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 06:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)--
The result was no consensus. I'm not convinced either way at this point. Please note, AfD is not a place for clean up. If there is a BLP violation please handle it through PROD or speedy.
Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. Missvain ( talk) 17:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
No references for a BLP article Signed, Pichemist ( Talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ
(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: JoelleJay's argument still hasn't been responded to or addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
if he wasn't notable the media wouldn't report on him. Except the mere fact that someone "gets reported on" is not one of our notability criteria, and moreover, the media doesn't report on him with any degree of depth. Can you please explain how the LVZ(*) articles above, the un-bylined BZ blurb announcing
Dr. Oskar Prince of Prussia spoke to readers about the Johanniter, the nobility in the 21st century and their great family role modeland giving a bare-bones "bio", or the Die Welt announcement that has all of this to say about him:
Oskar Prince of Prussia will succeed ex-Federal Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who died in the spring of 2016. The 59-year-old is Lord Master of the Order of St. John, as the festival organizers announced on Wednesday in Gardelegen.contain significant coverage? A handful of news reports providing the same routine biographical details and nothing else is neither evidence of SIGCOV nor of BASIC.
How is any of that encyclopedic? JoelleJay ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)His Royal Highness Oskar Prince of Prussia himself paid a visit to the establishment of his order on Tuesday afternoon as part of a tour through Central Germany.
And the acoustic and visual image that presents itself to him on the very royal, slow approach through Liebermannstrasse is a very special one: the samba group “Como vento” (Portuguese for “like the wind”) stands up in a multi-row formation the meadow opposite the facility and welcomes the Hohenzollern Prince with rhythms that defied the unusual cool July.
Under the direction of Janek Rochner-Günther, responsible for street work in Altenburg-Nord and facility manager, the percussion enthusiasts carry both the prince and his companion with them. His Royal Highness has to record a reminder video with his smartphone.
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no indication that this particular product is important, much less that it would pass WP:GNG. If it were particularly important, then it could be covered at Huawei and the article could be redirected in accordance with WP:NPRODUCT. Otherwise, the article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The article notes from Google Translate: "As for products such as Huawei's VR Glass, more of them occupy the market of light VR users who mainly watch movies. However, considering that the price of Huawei’s first-generation VR glasses is as high as 2,999 yuan (Oculus quest 2 is priced at $299), the second-generation VR glasses are likely to be sold at a price higher than this price, which is 2,000 yuan at home and abroad. Among price-priced all-in-one headsets, Huawei VR Glass is not outstanding in terms of cost performance. That is to say, but from the product level, Huawei is now holding votes in the VR industry at best. Even compared with domestic hardware manufacturers such as PICO, its market share is still at a disadvantage."
The review notes from Google Translate: "Thanks to the split design, HUAWEI VR Glass gets rid of the battery and processor, and bid farewell to the heavy and inconvenient impression of traditional VR headsets. The weight of 166g will not feel tired even if worn for a long time. The breakthrough innovation in the optical display has greatly reduced the volume of the fuselage, and combined with the folding storage, the VR glasses can also be carried with you."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Compared with the previous generation of VR products, Huawei's VR Glass 6DoF game set adopts a new and upgraded 6DoF positioning interaction method. The resources cover a variety of boutique mobile VR games and thousands of PC VR games on the Steam platform, bringing an immersive gaming experience and realistic Visual screen. At the same time, the weight of only 188g is no burden to wear, and it also allows users to enjoy the fun of the virtual world in reality."
The article notes: "The overall structure of HUAWEI VR Glass is very simple, with a VR glasses body, a handle, and a special connection for mobile phones. It can be perfectly integrated with popular models such as P40 series, P30 series, Mate 30 series, Mate 20 series, Mate XS, Mate X, etc. It only needs a simple connection to bring users into the world of VR. As mentioned earlier, because the entire field of view is covered by a huge screen, this experience can truly be called "immersion"."
The article notes: "Huawei released a new virtual reality glasses called Huawei VR Glass on the 26th. This is also the company's third-generation VR glasses launched in 2016 and 2017. The appearance of the new generation of VR glasses is similar to sunglasses. Not only is the frame thinner, but the weight is also very light, only 166 grams. In addition, the lens on the glasses is equipped with two independent Fast LCD screens, which can provide up to 3K resolution images. And can support dynamic rendering technology to improve the screen image and reduce dizziness. Users can also adjust the wearing degree of AR glasses according to their own myopia degree."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.
It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year
In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.
Thereppy ( talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. "
{{
reply to|Chess}}
In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.
Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.
Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party
Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor. AxderWraith Crimson ( talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Chess
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Our history | ![]() |
~ A WP:Self published source, but affiliated with the party and so may qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"American Party of Labor (U.S.)" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"Here in the very belly of imperialism, you have comrades:' Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson for the American Party of Labor, spoke to Evrensel about the APL and the U.S. policies" | ![]() |
? Unsure of the reliability of Evrensel | ![]() |
✘ No |
The American Party of Labor Has Been Granted Observer Status in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations | ![]() |
~ See WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago protesters say ‘No’ to Greek fascists" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago forum on U.S. role in Ukraine: fascists attempt disruption" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Support grows for “Dump Trump” protest planned for day one of Republican National Convention" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Communist group at Rutgers protests Standing Rock with Brower rally" | ![]() |
? Student newspaper | ![]() |
✘ No
|
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El ascenso del neofascismo americano: Apuntes sobre la presidencia de Donald Trump." | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Perhaps the author is saying that is the source for the post? Site is the official blog of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, see: [27] That party belongs to the same umbrella org ( ICMLPO (US) as the APL. | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El legado de Karl Marx en la revitalización del movimiento obrero estadounidense" | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Same issue as previous source. Appears to be the same self published blog as the previous and has the same issues of affiliation | ![]() |
? Dead link | ✘ No |
"Revolution is the Solution: Presentation of the American Party of Labor to the 23rd Seminar on the Problems of the Revolution in Latin America" | ![]() |
~ Possibly under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Booker on Blast: Hands Off Venezuela" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://naarpr.org/updates/call-to-refound/ "Call to Refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression"] | ~ Petition signed by the APL | ![]() |
value not understood The extent of the sources coverage of the APL is that the APL signed this petition. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No reliable sources talk about this as a genre. The cited sources don't support the preceding statements. The word "pop" doesn't even appear in the CMTV source, and the El Diario source only says that the cumbia under discussion has electronic elements making two bands more popular. I looked hard for more sources and found nothing. Binksternet ( talk) 06:10, 14 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 06:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not a town, but a housing development. They're almost never notable. promotional refs, part of a promotional campaign for the copany's projects DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. Minor award. scope_creep Talk 19:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable software. I was going to prod the article, but it was already deleted that way previously and by speedy deletion after that. SL93 ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 05:03, 14 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 03:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCHURCH. All I could find is coverage for St Hilda's Churches elsewhere in the world. LibStar ( talk) 03:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
First off its an orphan article, so its already a bad sign. Secondly, apart from hanging a banner saying "RESIST" near the White House along with other 6 activists, Nancy doesn't have any other notable event, as evidence of that, all of the references (except the ones regarding the banner) are either from her Linkedln profile, local newspapers and organizations and a episode from a small podcast.
About the banner, there's 6 references from 5 different newspapers, the only significant being the Los Angeles Times, and all the 6 news reports just briefly mention her name. Additionally the occurrence that brought her some media attention doesn't even have its own article. SadAttorney613 ( talk) 01:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG, total lack of secondary coverage. Article appears to have been created and extensively edited by someone associated with the org. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, references are all passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search shows up much the same + standard PR profiles. Also has WP:COI issues, and was previously deleted after discussion. Melcous ( talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Passing mentions, listacles and a few localized publications doesn't meet GNG.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. No sources provided and searches find no support from any RS.
The original creator notes on their Userpage that "promoting the "Liverpool Tart" confection which he discovered in a village web-site" which clearly suggests a non-notable recipe.
A mention on a National Trust site and an inclusion in a recipe blog site both appear to be almost direct copies of this article. Without evidence of dates for the external sites, it is possible that the copying may be from those sites to Wikipedia in which case it would also be a copy-vio.
Even if this is an accepted recipe in some other sources, there is nothing here to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 15:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
PROD removed without explanation. My rationale: These are just tour dates, based on a few web pages that announce the announcements and on the subject's own website. Tours are notable per WP:NTOUR, and that is not met here--not even remotely. Drmies ( talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:49, 14 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 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable. Term used once in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, in the entry on Léon Brunschvicg. Web search also yielded only results that use the term, rather than define it. Paradoctor ( talk) 23:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nothing presented here convinces me this subject passes WP:GNG. Fails GNG.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus, with No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. Still believe it fails WP:NFILM. LibStar ( talk) 23:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Notability not established with significant sources for specific name-brand product. Links are where to buy it and a short listicle item among 50 other lures; fails WP:NPRODUCT. Reywas92 Talk 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The article notes: "1) Little Cleo. She was a hootchie-kootchie girl who for 43 years had her dancer’s image stamped on the back of a fishing lure. A New York City songwriter named Charlie Clark saw Little Cleo perform during the 1930s; when he developed this popular spoon with its wiggling, dancing action in 1953, she became its namesake. In 1996 a female employee of a major retailer took offense at the dancer’s image on the lure, and for the sake of newfound political correctness, the image was removed by Acme Tackle of Rhode Island, the current manufacturer. Little Cleo spoons are thick in proportion to their surface area, so they fish relatively deep. This makes them a favorite trout spoon, but in sizes ranging from 1/16 to 11/4 ounce, they’re suitable for everything from panfish to steelhead and stripers."
The article notes: "For 43 years, Little Cleo spoons had the image of an exotic dancer stamped on the back. The spoons were first introduced in 1953 by the Seneca Tackle Co. in New York, which was started two years earlier by a songwriter and music publisher named C.V. “Charlie” Clark. He named the spoons the “Little Cleo” after a woman he watched perform in the 1930s. Clark believed the wiggling and dancing of the lure would bewitch the fish much like Little Cleo’s dance had mesmerized him."
The article notes: "18 Little Cleo. This is a great all-around spoon that I find myself using most often forcasting in a trout pond or lake. The comparatively thick body means it fisheswell at medium depths. Most important, though, my favorite ¼-ounce, hammered brass-and-red version sinks quickly as I wait and then wait some more before retrieving. It’s a deadly secret for deep-dwelling brook trout in early summer.acmetackle.com. SPECIES: [TROUT] [SALMON] [STEELHEAD] [SALTWATER]"
The article notes: "• Little Cleo: When Charlie Clark, a songwriter and producer, introduced this lure in 1953, he named it after an exotic dancer he had watched perform. He thought the spoon had the same mesmerizing moves as the dancer. A likeness of a scantily clad dancer was even printed on the back of the original spoons. It was removed years later after Clark’s company was sold to Acme and the latter business received complaints from a female employee of a major retailer."
The article notes: "The Little Cleo is considered a classic and still being sold, but no longer with the dancing girl's image stamped on the back, except in a collector's edition kit."
The article notes: "1. LITTLE CLEO: A spoon first made in 1953. A favorite trout spoon, but suitable for everything from panfish to striped bass. For 43 years, the spoon had an image of a dancing girl stamped on the back before it was removed in 1996 when a retailer complained." The article says Field & Stream is the source.
The book notes: "Acme's Little Cleo quickly became a favorite when salmon fishing ignited in the Great Lakes almost 30 years ago, and it remains a favorite of many trout and salmon fans there. Its hump-back shape makes it wiggle through the water like a fat bait fish—a meal big fish just can't resist."
The book notes on page 198: "Salmon not only strike bait, but also on occasion lures. Two of the most popular ones in this region are the Hotshot and Little Cleo. The book notes on page 200, "As for the Little Cleos, you will see them fished where anglers have a large concentration of salmon swimming around in a pocket of water in a non-snatching section (such as beneath the power plant in the Oswego River). Here, fishermen cast Cleos with rather low expectations of a salmon actually chasing and striking the lure. ..."
The article notes: "These baits come in a crazy number of shapes, but we’ll narrow our selection to one of the most popular choices: the Acme Little Cleo. ♦ CONSTRUCTION: Although the paint will become chipped and the hook will need to be replaced from time to time, this bait is basically indestructible."
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non notable game, website links dont work (even though it says archive) and the only proof i could find of it's existence is https://github.com/swisspol/WaterRace. Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Article is largely based on Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No embassies, agreements, level of trade is very low. Article states "There are no relevant development aid flows". LibStar ( talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The arguments for redirecting the article fell flat. ✗ plicit 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Estonia did not participate in the 2018 Winter Paralympics. -- Sangjinhwa ( talk) 22:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to Handbook for Mortals. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
While the book and associated gaming of the bestseller list is Notable, the author is not. Notability is not inherited. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete as WP:TOOSOON. Could be recreated if there is additional coverage to establish notability in the future. RL0919 ( talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Extremely WP:TOOSOON article of an emerging artist; the notability claim is that they "promoted vaccination through coloring books" (the website credits them by Instagram handle, not by name). Sources are local news and their high school website. They're probably going places! But they have't got there, yet.
Relevant article history, for full disclosure: I put a PROD on this, which was reverted by the original editor, who gave this as the reason: "Deletion is not accepted since the artist has credible sources to support her journey as an artist. The artist is seen in her local newspaper and performing arts center." Alas, I don't think either of those count significantly towards notability. asilvering ( talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment (nom): article used incorrect pronouns, which I just noticed (pronouns given on artist's instagram); I've edited this AfD and I'll get to the article in a second.
Comment: Newspapers are credible and artists are difficult to be seen as notability without books but online resources are just as reliable. If the artist did not have newspapers about her it would not be credible but it does. This artist deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia for being involved not only in her community but school. CSUCI's reports on her are credible since it is a real school and the local newspaper is seen by over one million residents which is reliable. The local newspaper is credible to keep this artist on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxnardgirl ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
What if they had an apocalypse and nobody came? That seems to be the issue here: I can't read the Boston Globe article, but it seems to be dismissive, judging from the headline. Everything else seems to be a mixture of references to buttress uncontroversial statements and in-world fringe publications. Unlike some of these end-of-the-world prophecies it looks as though this one never caught the attention of the outside world. So I'm seeing notability issues on top of the too-much-fringe-detail issues. Mangoe ( talk) 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a big mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Almost all of the citations are opinion pieces, and the ones that aren't tend to mention specific games, in which case any controversy about said boob physics could be covered on the relevant pages. Jtrainor ( talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This was the first revision of the article prior I removed all promotional material. The subject of the article is a Nigerian businessman / entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search shows me user generated sources, some sources in reputable media but the byline reads “editor” which is indicative of a sponsored post, a before also shows press releases and mere announcements. For example see this a sponsored post, see this note the byline says “editor” indicative of a guest editor which invariably means it is sponsored. An untrained new page reviewer might not catch this, but this article is a blatant ADMASQ on a non notable businessman who is trying to get a Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus against deletion. Discussion to merge with utility room can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This lacks so much noteability that most wikis don't even have a page for it. It hasn't had any kind of notability references pretty much since it's creation, and has sat in it's current condition for pretty much a decade. Time for it to go. Jtrainor ( talk) 20:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:Author. Cookbook and advice column author with next to zero coverage. Per LOC, just one of many 'Prudence Penny' authors. Cause for no consensus in 2010 (nominated by page creator) was having ~50 copies of a cookbook being catalogued in WorldCat. Star Garnet ( talk) 21:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting soft-delete close per
request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 19:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I am unable to find evidence they meet any elements of N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 19:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. His only claim to notability in the article is for a position that was uncredited. The only source being used is IMDB which, on top of not being a reliable source, also lists all but one of his positions as also being "uncredited". I searched for any additional sources using the names "Newell Sparks", "William Newell Sparks" and "William Sparks" and was unable to find any kind of reliable sources discussing the individual. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The article makes no claim of any significant impact the individual has had, and there are only passing mentions in reliable sources — failing BASIC. I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the book he co-authored, apart from a review from insideBIGDATA — does not meet NAUTHOR. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE search returns a few WP:ROUTINE mentions in statistical databases and a few forum posts, but no significant coverage whatsoever. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct minor company. No independent sources. This is not encyclopedic. Marquardtika ( talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. I note that while participation each time has been low, five different editors (including nominators and commenters) in three AFDs have argued that this subject is not notable, and no one has argued that it is. RL0919 ( talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Soft delete, restored after request at WP:REFUND (courtesy @ Muboshgu:, will manually notify IP). No issue with any of that. However, there is still no reliable source, independent coverage to establish notability. If it comes back in spring as per IP's note and if it garners coverage, it can be restored then. I would normally draftify, and not at all against that, but this seems contested so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Wonder Woman supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Was prodded twice, and deprodded each time with no actual explanation of why this article should stay. Avilich ( talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yola (singer). Redirect
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Article was created in 2008 with a "this band exists" vibe and has been flagged for better sources since 2010. From then until about 2019, their works were only visible in the typical streaming and social media services. It turns out that since 2019, one member has become far more notable on her own: Yola (singer). Now the band is occasionally mentioned in reliable media sources, but only ever as an early stop for Yola, and their works are still not gaining any notice in their own right. Meanwhile I plan to add some info about this band to Yola's article, and I think that will be sufficient. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
BEFORE yielded no significant coverage in reliable sources, outside of passing mentions about their letter (supported by only 20 scientists) in relation to COP26. It seems to fail NORG and GNG. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Colonestarrice ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NMUSIC. The article has a single source which appears to not mention the subject at all. The only things I found on the internet, were a ticket sales site, several pages that trivially mention the subject, and a paywalled article that may provide significant coverage. But I'm afraid even if it does, that's just not enough; NMUSIC required "multiple, non-trivial, published works" and GNG "stipulates that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article".
According to the article's own lead, the band might satisfy a view NMUSIC criteria but I couldn't find any sources that back this up. Colonestarrice ( talk) 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The article is just 1 paragraph that is basically a biography of what seems like a random person. Obviously fails WP:N. Philosophy2 ( talk) 06:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability, no sources. -- Corwin of Amber ( talk) 09:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus among !votes grounded in policy is that Rudyi does not meet the standards for notability (yet?). If someone wants to work on this in draft space, just ping me. Star Mississippi 22:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe the subject passes GNG - the coverage is only abut him being assigned as a head of a commission (which I suppose is not a major governing body) and as a participant of sport competition. I don't think this is enough. Less Unless ( talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. One editor found some coverage in one local newspaper, but most participants did not find this sufficient to establish notability. RL0919 ( talk) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. Acting career does not appear to be notable either. ... discospinster talk 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Northwestern College (Iowa). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with <2,000 students playing in NAIA has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92 Talk 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 08:07, 14 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 11:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Russian / Ukrainian TV series with no real coverage in reliable sources.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 11:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Nebraska Wesleyan University. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with 2,000 students playing in Division III has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92 Talk 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Proposed deletion from lack of notability. This is not a suburb as defined by Hutt City Council and it is unclear why this area is notable enough for a separate article, especially when the article has only one reference which does not appear to support the statements made in the article. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 00:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 06:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 06:26, 14 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 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
An empty article. There is no evidence of significance. One link to the official website of the organization.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 06:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)--
The result was no consensus. I'm not convinced either way at this point. Please note, AfD is not a place for clean up. If there is a BLP violation please handle it through PROD or speedy.
Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. Missvain ( talk) 17:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
No references for a BLP article Signed, Pichemist ( Talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ
(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: JoelleJay's argument still hasn't been responded to or addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
if he wasn't notable the media wouldn't report on him. Except the mere fact that someone "gets reported on" is not one of our notability criteria, and moreover, the media doesn't report on him with any degree of depth. Can you please explain how the LVZ(*) articles above, the un-bylined BZ blurb announcing
Dr. Oskar Prince of Prussia spoke to readers about the Johanniter, the nobility in the 21st century and their great family role modeland giving a bare-bones "bio", or the Die Welt announcement that has all of this to say about him:
Oskar Prince of Prussia will succeed ex-Federal Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who died in the spring of 2016. The 59-year-old is Lord Master of the Order of St. John, as the festival organizers announced on Wednesday in Gardelegen.contain significant coverage? A handful of news reports providing the same routine biographical details and nothing else is neither evidence of SIGCOV nor of BASIC.
How is any of that encyclopedic? JoelleJay ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)His Royal Highness Oskar Prince of Prussia himself paid a visit to the establishment of his order on Tuesday afternoon as part of a tour through Central Germany.
And the acoustic and visual image that presents itself to him on the very royal, slow approach through Liebermannstrasse is a very special one: the samba group “Como vento” (Portuguese for “like the wind”) stands up in a multi-row formation the meadow opposite the facility and welcomes the Hohenzollern Prince with rhythms that defied the unusual cool July.
Under the direction of Janek Rochner-Günther, responsible for street work in Altenburg-Nord and facility manager, the percussion enthusiasts carry both the prince and his companion with them. His Royal Highness has to record a reminder video with his smartphone.
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 14:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no indication that this particular product is important, much less that it would pass WP:GNG. If it were particularly important, then it could be covered at Huawei and the article could be redirected in accordance with WP:NPRODUCT. Otherwise, the article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The article notes from Google Translate: "As for products such as Huawei's VR Glass, more of them occupy the market of light VR users who mainly watch movies. However, considering that the price of Huawei’s first-generation VR glasses is as high as 2,999 yuan (Oculus quest 2 is priced at $299), the second-generation VR glasses are likely to be sold at a price higher than this price, which is 2,000 yuan at home and abroad. Among price-priced all-in-one headsets, Huawei VR Glass is not outstanding in terms of cost performance. That is to say, but from the product level, Huawei is now holding votes in the VR industry at best. Even compared with domestic hardware manufacturers such as PICO, its market share is still at a disadvantage."
The review notes from Google Translate: "Thanks to the split design, HUAWEI VR Glass gets rid of the battery and processor, and bid farewell to the heavy and inconvenient impression of traditional VR headsets. The weight of 166g will not feel tired even if worn for a long time. The breakthrough innovation in the optical display has greatly reduced the volume of the fuselage, and combined with the folding storage, the VR glasses can also be carried with you."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Compared with the previous generation of VR products, Huawei's VR Glass 6DoF game set adopts a new and upgraded 6DoF positioning interaction method. The resources cover a variety of boutique mobile VR games and thousands of PC VR games on the Steam platform, bringing an immersive gaming experience and realistic Visual screen. At the same time, the weight of only 188g is no burden to wear, and it also allows users to enjoy the fun of the virtual world in reality."
The article notes: "The overall structure of HUAWEI VR Glass is very simple, with a VR glasses body, a handle, and a special connection for mobile phones. It can be perfectly integrated with popular models such as P40 series, P30 series, Mate 30 series, Mate 20 series, Mate XS, Mate X, etc. It only needs a simple connection to bring users into the world of VR. As mentioned earlier, because the entire field of view is covered by a huge screen, this experience can truly be called "immersion"."
The article notes: "Huawei released a new virtual reality glasses called Huawei VR Glass on the 26th. This is also the company's third-generation VR glasses launched in 2016 and 2017. The appearance of the new generation of VR glasses is similar to sunglasses. Not only is the frame thinner, but the weight is also very light, only 166 grams. In addition, the lens on the glasses is equipped with two independent Fast LCD screens, which can provide up to 3K resolution images. And can support dynamic rendering technology to improve the screen image and reduce dizziness. Users can also adjust the wearing degree of AR glasses according to their own myopia degree."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.
Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.
It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year
In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.
Thereppy ( talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. "
{{
reply to|Chess}}
In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.
Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.
Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party
Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor. AxderWraith Crimson ( talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Chess
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Our history | ![]() |
~ A WP:Self published source, but affiliated with the party and so may qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"American Party of Labor (U.S.)" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"Here in the very belly of imperialism, you have comrades:' Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson for the American Party of Labor, spoke to Evrensel about the APL and the U.S. policies" | ![]() |
? Unsure of the reliability of Evrensel | ![]() |
✘ No |
The American Party of Labor Has Been Granted Observer Status in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations | ![]() |
~ See WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago protesters say ‘No’ to Greek fascists" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Chicago forum on U.S. role in Ukraine: fascists attempt disruption" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Support grows for “Dump Trump” protest planned for day one of Republican National Convention" | ![]() |
? Highly biased source from within the movement | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Communist group at Rutgers protests Standing Rock with Brower rally" | ![]() |
? Student newspaper | ![]() |
✘ No
|
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El ascenso del neofascismo americano: Apuntes sobre la presidencia de Donald Trump." | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Perhaps the author is saying that is the source for the post? Site is the official blog of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, see: [27] That party belongs to the same umbrella org ( ICMLPO (US) as the APL. | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El legado de Karl Marx en la revitalización del movimiento obrero estadounidense" | ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Same issue as previous source. Appears to be the same self published blog as the previous and has the same issues of affiliation | ![]() |
? Dead link | ✘ No |
"Revolution is the Solution: Presentation of the American Party of Labor to the 23rd Seminar on the Problems of the Revolution in Latin America" | ![]() |
~ Possibly under WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
"Booker on Blast: Hands Off Venezuela" | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://naarpr.org/updates/call-to-refound/ "Call to Refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression"] | ~ Petition signed by the APL | ![]() |
value not understood The extent of the sources coverage of the APL is that the APL signed this petition. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No reliable sources talk about this as a genre. The cited sources don't support the preceding statements. The word "pop" doesn't even appear in the CMTV source, and the El Diario source only says that the cumbia under discussion has electronic elements making two bands more popular. I looked hard for more sources and found nothing. Binksternet ( talk) 06:10, 14 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 06:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not a town, but a housing development. They're almost never notable. promotional refs, part of a promotional campaign for the copany's projects DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. Minor award. scope_creep Talk 19:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable software. I was going to prod the article, but it was already deleted that way previously and by speedy deletion after that. SL93 ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 05:03, 14 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 03:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCHURCH. All I could find is coverage for St Hilda's Churches elsewhere in the world. LibStar ( talk) 03:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
First off its an orphan article, so its already a bad sign. Secondly, apart from hanging a banner saying "RESIST" near the White House along with other 6 activists, Nancy doesn't have any other notable event, as evidence of that, all of the references (except the ones regarding the banner) are either from her Linkedln profile, local newspapers and organizations and a episode from a small podcast.
About the banner, there's 6 references from 5 different newspapers, the only significant being the Los Angeles Times, and all the 6 news reports just briefly mention her name. Additionally the occurrence that brought her some media attention doesn't even have its own article. SadAttorney613 ( talk) 01:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG, total lack of secondary coverage. Article appears to have been created and extensively edited by someone associated with the org. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, references are all passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search shows up much the same + standard PR profiles. Also has WP:COI issues, and was previously deleted after discussion. Melcous ( talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)