The result was redirect to North American Floorball League. (non-admin closure) Aasim ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable semi-pro teams with no WP:GNG-satisfying independent coverage whatsoever. Searches in local newspapers such as cleveland.com in the case of the Cleveland Bucs find no mentions at all of these teams. Also nominating similar pages created by the same user:
Kges1901 ( talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Minimal participation, some article improvements during the debate, and two relists makes this incredibly hard to deduce consensus. No prejudice whatsoever if anyone wishes to renominate this again in the near future. Daniel ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Lots of routine coverage and press releases, but I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NCORP. signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Article is OR/SYNTH. It cites some factoids about Satan in the Jewish scriptures, belief in an inferior demiurge as found in Gnosticism and various historical Christian sects, etc, but those factoids are already covered in other articles, and their connection to the article title is quite tenuous. The phrase "God as the devil" is rarely found in the scholarly literature, and its occasional disparate uses appear to have little connection with the contents of this article. Mr248 ( talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (
non-admin closure).
Additional reliable sources were presented in discussion that prove notability.
HiddenLemon //
talk
21:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: No longer unconvinced of subject's notability. My nomination for deletion is withdrawn.
I'm on the fence with this one. At first glance of sources currently cited, it seems non-notable; the Business Insider is the only one that might count. However, after a search online, I found a handful of RS's, but some don't contain
WP:SIGCOV.
The potential RS's I found are listed in the first comment below for brevity. Figured I'd at least open this AfD for others to discuss and find consensus since I'm not convinced one way or the other. HiddenLemon // talk 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.businessinsider.com/andre-schurrle-football-soccer-startup-sorare-funding-2020-7 | ? Unknown | |||
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/soccer-teams-turning-to-virtual-fan-tokens-to-raise-money | ? Unknown | |||
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/business/2021/01/09/jogo-tem-cartas-digitais-de-astros-do-futebol-que-custam-ate-r-615-mil-conheca | ? Unknown | |||
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/soccer-teams-turning-virtual-fan-tokens-raise-money-71425125 | ? Unknown | |||
https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/10/ubisoft-launches-5th-entrepreneur-lab-with-8-startups/ | ? Unknown | |||
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}}. |
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler hello • contribs 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler hello • contribs 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler hello • contribs 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability other than having been the the married (for three years) and then divorced from an actress. Article doesn't even state any other claim to notability. ExRat ( talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Soccerway has no appearances listed and FilGoal only has 2 friendly matches. He does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL on that basis as the guideline requires it to be a competitive match between two sides in fully professional leagues. There is also no indication of passing WP:GNG. I did initially draftify as an alternative to deletion but the article creator cut and pasted this back to mainspace, so here we are. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not a soft-delete due to being a BLP with no sourcing. Daniel ( talk) 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
BLP but no sources. Very short article Larryzhao123 ( talk | contribs) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A very lengthy article but there is no evidence whatsoever of any notability. She very briefly played in the W-League and then the second tier in Sweden, none of which would give a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL anyway, and then spent the rest of her career at various amateur clubs. The two best sources, this and this, are both non-independent as they are from the website of a club that she used to play for. Ozfootball confirms that her career was very brief in the W-League. My WP:BEFORE search did not find any significant coverage. Nothing on ProQuest about the player. There is also a WP:COI concern and parts of the article have been written by someone claiming to be her sister. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Article about a podcast, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for internet content. As always, every podcast is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test requires independently sourced analysis of its significance, not just technical verification of its existence via its own self-published web presence. But the only "source" here is itself, and in 12 years of existing it's never had any other sources added at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Just encyclopedic enough to not be speedied under G11 but entirely promotional. Could find nothing to satisfy GNG. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The only available coverage is this piece in the local paper which is of the "local 22-year old very successful" sort. The business itself has not been discussed in other sources. Not sufficient for WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It's just a dictionary entry and fails WP:NOT#DICT. I can't see any societal aspect that could serve as the basis of an article. White Whirlwind 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:COI, written like an advertisement. And possibly created for payments Larryzhao123 ( talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
2020-07 ✍️ create
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor requires the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and with the only sources being a blurb's worth of information in a local history book and an undergraduate history essay by a student at the local university, it doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*Delete As per above fails
WP:NPOL.
SpareSeiko (
talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
SpareSeiko (
talk ·
contribs) is a confirmed sock of
Akronowner (
talk ·
contribs).
Pahunkat (
talk)
13:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, Pike doesn't pass WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in Google Books, Google News or in a British newspaper search. The best results found in a ProQuest search were this and this, both of which are trivial newspaper stories about decisions he made in a football match. No in-depth coverage that we can build a biography from. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable US lawyer. Seems like his biggest achievement so far is founding an "Admiral Cigar Club and Lounge". The page was created by a WP:SPA. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
fails NFOOTY and appears to fail GNG too with no significant coverage Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as an improper cut-paste of the still pending Draft:Curtis J. Jones, Jr.. As always, editors are certainly allowed to write a draft in draftspace and then submit it to the approval queue, but the process does not entitle them to then immediately cut and paste their own work into mainspace while the draft is still awaiting AFC review. Bearcat ( talk) 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails to pass WP:NPOL Woinfosd ( talk) 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. The G4 nomination removals were performed by a confirmed sock. As the G4 tagging was valid, there is no need for AfD at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Karate practitioner who does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:SPORTBASIC. The article was previously deleted in 19 November 2020. Papaursa comments at the previous AfD still hold true: "According to the World Karate Federation database, Abdolmaleki has never competed at a WKF world or continental championship. [25] In terms of qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics, he is ranked in a tie for 351st in his division. [26] None of the references in the article nor anything I found in my search show significant independent coverage that would support a claim that WP:GNG is met. He does not appear to meet any WP notability criteria."
This latest article has twice been tagged with WP:G4, but the notice has been removed without explanation both times. John B123 ( talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Premature article about a radio station that was granted a license in 2020 but has not yet commenced broadcasting as of today. Simply having been given a license is not grounds for an article in and of itself — there have been many, many instances in North American broadcasting of radio stations being granted licenses by the FCC or the CRTC but then failing to actually launch within the authorized period and thus having their licenses expire, so a radio station has to actually be on the air to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:BCAST, not just get a license. So obviously this can be recreated if and when the station has actually launched, but as of February 1, 2021 the company still hasn't verifiably announced any launch date at all, which means it's not an appropriate article topic yet. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (created by a blocked user in violation of block). Mz7 ( talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The sources for this article are all self-published or do not refer to the subject in detail. His IMDb page suggests that the subject is known for being the son of a martyr, which, of course, does not confer notability. Since I have not been able to find any reliable coverage of his music- or acting-related activities, I think the article should be deleted for failure of WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Modussiccandi ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
dePRODED with no comment. Player fails WP:NRU as has only featured in the Romanian league, which is not a notable league and has only played 7s in non notable tournaments. A WP:BEFORE search only brings up transactional reports and some match reports, but this is all routine and so he also fails WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
dePRODED with no comment. Player fails WP:NRU as he has no professional appearances at all. A WP:BEFORE search brought up a couple of transaction announcements on him moving to Romania, but this is just routine and not enough to pass WP:GNG Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
dePRODED without comment, player fails WP:NRU as he has only appeared in the Romanian league which is not notable, and played in a non-notable 7s tournament. A WP:BEFORE search provided no suitable sources that would allow it to pass WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Three relists and decent arguments on all sides. Can't find a consensus here either way (del, keep, merge). Daniel ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY in every respect Smerus ( talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Notability not shown Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Recreation of a stub of previously deleted content by an editor with very little participation in Wikipedia otherwise. BD2412 T 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus that though there are sources, their quality is not sufficient to meet GNG Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Subject has a substantial number of sources, but I question their usability. They include press releases and other outright PR documents, primary sources, and pieces authored by the subject rather than about the subject. CTO of the DVA doesn't seem to be a position that confers inherent notability. BD2412 T 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Fairline Boats. Very, very selectively. Daniel ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
possible contains original research, needs formatting Larryzhao123 ( talk) 15:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thanks Larryzhao123 Have tried to improve and format page to comply with Wikipedia policies and avert deletion, please can you advise any other improvements to be made. 16:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus that sources are not sufficiently in-depth to show notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This page only has 2 sources, and most of the information is unsourced. (I can't find any more sources about her) Larryzhao123 ( talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Govvy ( talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Andhra cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Kerala cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No indication he has played professional football to pass WP:NFOOTBALL and I don't see this passing WP:GNG at present. Govvy ( talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. On the assumption that JPL just put in one too many negatives, there is consensus that there is not enough sourcing to show notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. With the provision of additional sources, consensus that there is indeed enough to show NBOOK is met Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I found one review,
[30], little else to suggest a pass of NBOOK, though some passing coverage (
[31]) exists. It does seem to be a useful book and is cited a few times in a few places, but I haven't seen indication that it's widely cited enough or covered enough to establish notability.
Eddie891
Talk
Work
17:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The book notes:
Although the literature on war is voluminous and diverse in subject matter—with many studies devoted to causes, campaign strategies, and economic effects—very little has been published on what can be termed the "engines of war." This information gap has been bridged significantly with the publication of the twenty-four-volume Ilustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. It will be of value to multiple audiences, including historians, military history buffs, and general readers.
The scope of the volumes is enormous. Virtually every weapon used during the twentieth century is presented. Many prototype weapons and other pieces of equipment that were never used in combat, as well as some unrealized projects that influenced subsequent develops in weaponry, are included. The arrangement is alphabetical, with the exception of a special section at the close of each volume that is devoted to artillery. Individual artillery weapons of particular note (e.g., the BAT series of British antitank guns) have detailed entries in the main body of the text. The volumes are profusely illustrated with photographs, cross-sectional diagrams, and color illustrations.
Gale said their entry is "Citation Only".
Gale said their entry is "Citation Only".
The book has received three reviews: Reference and User Services Quarterly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The Booklist review is an in-depth review. I found copies of the review through doing searches through the Google Books snippet view here and here.
The review said that Weapons and Warfare was first published in 1967 "as a consecutively published partwork issued in the United Kingdom by Phoebus". It notes that the general editor is Bernard Fitzimmons, "who has edited works on military history for Phoebus". It said that the book has three consultants: Anthony Preston (naval consultant), Bill Gunston (aviation consultant), and Ian V. Hogg (land weapons consultant), who are "established authorities and prolific writers on military affairs". It said that John Batchelor illustrated the book.
The review notes:
The review later notes:The 24 volumes include 3,000 articles, and a Classified Index is the final volume. The articles cover various types of ships, aircraft, armored fighting vehicles, small arms, and missiles as well as survey articles on artillery. Each entry begins with a definition, e.g., Italian bomber or British destroyer escort class, and concludes with technical specifications concerning size, armament, speed, crew, etc. A typical entry includes several short paragraphs on noteworthy history and particular characteristics of the weapon concerned. Entries range in length from one paragraph to five pages; they are well written, succinct, and accurate. The wide variety of well-chosen illustrations, many of which are in color and which appear on almost every page, include contemporary photographs, paintings, and diagrams. There is no bibliography, and articles are unsigned.
[additional information]
This review contains substantial background and analysis and criticism of Weapons and Warfare. I consider the reviews in Reference and User Services Quarterly and Booklist to be in-depth enough to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria criterion that "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."Weapons and Warfare is legibly printed in triple columns on coated paper and is side sewn. It is bound in plasticized paper-covered boards; the spine has been flattened with board stiffeners, which may cause early spine failure.
The information in this encyclopedia is reliable, the coverage is broad, the illustrations are attractive, and the indexing/reference structure is fairly adequate. Nevertheless, Weapons and Warfare is of somewhat dubious value as a as a reference tool: it is difficult to identify its potential audience. Scholars will find it too superficial; students will need to use it in conjunction with the more synoptic survey articles in general encyclopedias or textbooks; model builders may be better served by the standardized illustrations of various guide series; and general readers will require more interpretive information. The committee Recommends it for large and comprehensive collections but suggests that selectors for other collections carefully assess user needs before acquiring.
Booklist 77:717 Ja 15 '81 1350w
I consider 200–250 words about a book to meet the "significant coverage" requirement in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:
As long as the reviews provide significant coverage of the subject and are from reputable publications, they should be sufficient to help establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. That the publications review thousands of books a year should not affect their ability to help establish notability. An RfC would be needed to exclude reliable and in-depth reviews from publications like Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, School Library Journal, and Booklist from establishing notability because they review thousands of books."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I can find little independent coverage of this BLP, coverage of Secker in reliable sources is entirely focused of scepticism of his courses, with accompanying rebuttals from Secker; see Financial Times [32] and [33] The Guardian [34] and BBC [35] Other citations seem to be promotional and/or self written. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:A9 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Created by a SPA, has been PRODded but the article creator reverted the PROD without explanation. The band do not have their own article so there is no redirect target, and there are no reliable independent sources. The last two sources are the band's website and their Spotify page – the Outburn article is an exact replica of the press release from the band's website. The New Noise Magazine article was an premiere of the album exclusively presented in collaboration with the band on the website, and is simply a link to stream the album, along with the press release again. The Frontview article just reports the premiere of the album on New Noise Magazine and replicates the press release yet again. The Moshville Times article is a primary source interview with the band on a non-RS website that doesn't mention the album at all. So everything is the same press release issued by the band, along with links to view the videos or stream the album. The only source which might be an RS is this review [36] but that's just one review, not multiple in-depth coverage, and I haven't found anything better – there are a couple of reviews on websites which definitely don't pass WP:RS [37], [38], and one from a promotion company that lists the band among their clients [39]. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Perfect example of why we should stop assuming notability based on one match criteria, WP:NCRIC need a revamp big time. Störm (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a futsal club called "Persatuan Futsal Selayang" but, for some reason, the content is about Selangor F.C. and Football Association of Selangor. In any case, I have done a WP:BEFORE search about the futsal club, which is supposed to be the subject of the article, and can't find evidence that it passes WP:GNG. According to the article, it competes in the "Selayang Super League", which I can also find no decent info about. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; I can't find any valid references for this 7 minute film. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG, sourced to blogs and dead links, largely created and maintained by apparent WP:COI and WP:SPA editors Melcous ( talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
notability Robingunes ( talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage to demonstrate this passes WP:GNG. BEFORE comes up with no reliable sources. WP:YTN says that subscriber count is "insufficient basis by which to establish notability." Does not pass it's relevant SNG, WP:ENT, either. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an elected official. Nor has enough newspaper mentions to have an article of his own(TL; DR; Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG). He's a "state"'s president of a minor national-level political party. Not that it matters, but The party itself , and its national-level president are well known across the country though. Daiyusha ( talk) 09:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The subject is completely non-notable, has not made a single popular song, doesn't have any views on YouTube or Spotify, and doesn't appear to have had a single mention in reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Repeatedly declined at draft, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong ( talk) 09:08, 1 February 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. Daniel ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Not everyone who was an associate deputy director fifteen years ago is notable. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not notable by default, and this one is a very undistinguished ambassador. Only one foreign post, to Portugal. Moldova–Portugal relations are trivial and there exists no article on said relations. No sign of Turea meeting WP:ANYBIO. Geschichte ( talk) 07:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
A Trump nominee to the Superior Court of DC; the nomination has expired, as should this article for failing WP:JUDGE. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn after unanimous keep !votes. postdlf ( talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Nowadays the list is impossible to keep up to date as there must be hundreds of them. Even if you could keep it up to date it would be far too long. Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This was an expired prod with the rationale: "This page does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Its notability has been contested since 2011, and it does not appear that the page has been edited in over three years". Alas, it has been at AFD before with no consensus. Geschichte ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is unsourced, and after some search, I've concluded that it is completely unsourceable. A books search found a single book that mentioned the word while saying nothing at all about it, and news searches found nothing, while standard web searches found nothing that counts as a reliable source.
This appears to have been a short-lived passing fad that disappeared with the popularity of mobile internet. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
there's a grain elevator there, and going all the way back to 1915 we have the ever-helpful Railroad Commission of California discussing the Citrona Warehouse for storing grain. That's all the topos and aerials ever show here, so I'm going to say that this is yet another NN rail spot. Mangoe ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
360Learning is a startup company involved in professional development activities, but what this firm did with his product is unknown. This article has been created by the chief marketing officer of the time. The only interesting thing I found was his book and this interview, but he left the company in 2017 to set up his company. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything in books to improve this article… Genium . 04:14, Feb 1, 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. An unreleased song without commercial availability. No in-depth discussion regarding the song's music and lyrics. Has not even charted. While I could have assumed WP:BOLD and redirected it somewhere, it appears there is not really an appropriate target page to redirect this to (should it be ASAP Rocky discography--while this is not at all mentioned there; or List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey--although Lana Del Rey is only a guest artist?). That is why I have proposed this for AFD. HĐ ( talk) 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hamleys. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." (outside numerous mentions that he founded Hamleys) It was deprodded with no meaningful rationale. I couldn't find anything else in my search to suggest he is known outside this single event (founding of a company named after his family). I couldn't find even his dates of birth or deaths, and the location of birth given in our article may be an error, although "a William Hamley", born there, was a father of a Royal Navy officer: [40]. Unless we can find better sources, I think the best non-hard deletion option that can be justified would be redirecting to Hamleys where the subject is mentioned. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe this should be merged into the Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration page or should be draftified. The page, on its own, does not appear to be written in an encyclopedic format (a large portion of the page is a bulleted list), and the page is focused on a piece of legislation that does not yet appear to have been written nor introduced in the congress. The first source is not an RS, but instead a website dedicated to providing a "easy, convenient way to find financial advisors in your area." The other two sources appear to refer only to Biden's outline of the plan and refer to a speech that Biden gave rather than to the text of any actual document. The article needs work, and the details of the plan do not appear to be public yet. Thus, I see two options: draftify the page and work on it before republishing it, or merge it into the more general economic policy page associated with the Presidency of Joe Biden. I am looking to see what others think. Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to North American Floorball League. (non-admin closure) Aasim ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable semi-pro teams with no WP:GNG-satisfying independent coverage whatsoever. Searches in local newspapers such as cleveland.com in the case of the Cleveland Bucs find no mentions at all of these teams. Also nominating similar pages created by the same user:
Kges1901 ( talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Minimal participation, some article improvements during the debate, and two relists makes this incredibly hard to deduce consensus. No prejudice whatsoever if anyone wishes to renominate this again in the near future. Daniel ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Lots of routine coverage and press releases, but I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NCORP. signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Article is OR/SYNTH. It cites some factoids about Satan in the Jewish scriptures, belief in an inferior demiurge as found in Gnosticism and various historical Christian sects, etc, but those factoids are already covered in other articles, and their connection to the article title is quite tenuous. The phrase "God as the devil" is rarely found in the scholarly literature, and its occasional disparate uses appear to have little connection with the contents of this article. Mr248 ( talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (
non-admin closure).
Additional reliable sources were presented in discussion that prove notability.
HiddenLemon //
talk
21:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: No longer unconvinced of subject's notability. My nomination for deletion is withdrawn.
I'm on the fence with this one. At first glance of sources currently cited, it seems non-notable; the Business Insider is the only one that might count. However, after a search online, I found a handful of RS's, but some don't contain
WP:SIGCOV.
The potential RS's I found are listed in the first comment below for brevity. Figured I'd at least open this AfD for others to discuss and find consensus since I'm not convinced one way or the other. HiddenLemon // talk 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.businessinsider.com/andre-schurrle-football-soccer-startup-sorare-funding-2020-7 | ? Unknown | |||
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/soccer-teams-turning-to-virtual-fan-tokens-to-raise-money | ? Unknown | |||
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/business/2021/01/09/jogo-tem-cartas-digitais-de-astros-do-futebol-que-custam-ate-r-615-mil-conheca | ? Unknown | |||
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/soccer-teams-turning-virtual-fan-tokens-raise-money-71425125 | ? Unknown | |||
https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/10/ubisoft-launches-5th-entrepreneur-lab-with-8-startups/ | ? Unknown | |||
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}}. |
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler hello • contribs 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler hello • contribs 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The article baselessly claims that this person is notable for being the husband of a barely-notable actress. Lettler hello • contribs 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability other than having been the the married (for three years) and then divorced from an actress. Article doesn't even state any other claim to notability. ExRat ( talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Soccerway has no appearances listed and FilGoal only has 2 friendly matches. He does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL on that basis as the guideline requires it to be a competitive match between two sides in fully professional leagues. There is also no indication of passing WP:GNG. I did initially draftify as an alternative to deletion but the article creator cut and pasted this back to mainspace, so here we are. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not a soft-delete due to being a BLP with no sourcing. Daniel ( talk) 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
BLP but no sources. Very short article Larryzhao123 ( talk | contribs) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A very lengthy article but there is no evidence whatsoever of any notability. She very briefly played in the W-League and then the second tier in Sweden, none of which would give a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL anyway, and then spent the rest of her career at various amateur clubs. The two best sources, this and this, are both non-independent as they are from the website of a club that she used to play for. Ozfootball confirms that her career was very brief in the W-League. My WP:BEFORE search did not find any significant coverage. Nothing on ProQuest about the player. There is also a WP:COI concern and parts of the article have been written by someone claiming to be her sister. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Article about a podcast, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for internet content. As always, every podcast is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test requires independently sourced analysis of its significance, not just technical verification of its existence via its own self-published web presence. But the only "source" here is itself, and in 12 years of existing it's never had any other sources added at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Just encyclopedic enough to not be speedied under G11 but entirely promotional. Could find nothing to satisfy GNG. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The only available coverage is this piece in the local paper which is of the "local 22-year old very successful" sort. The business itself has not been discussed in other sources. Not sufficient for WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It's just a dictionary entry and fails WP:NOT#DICT. I can't see any societal aspect that could serve as the basis of an article. White Whirlwind 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:COI, written like an advertisement. And possibly created for payments Larryzhao123 ( talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
2020-07 ✍️ create
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor requires the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and with the only sources being a blurb's worth of information in a local history book and an undergraduate history essay by a student at the local university, it doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*Delete As per above fails
WP:NPOL.
SpareSeiko (
talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
SpareSeiko (
talk ·
contribs) is a confirmed sock of
Akronowner (
talk ·
contribs).
Pahunkat (
talk)
13:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding one blurb's worth of information about him on one page of a local history book, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, Pike doesn't pass WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in Google Books, Google News or in a British newspaper search. The best results found in a ProQuest search were this and this, both of which are trivial newspaper stories about decisions he made in a football match. No in-depth coverage that we can build a biography from. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable US lawyer. Seems like his biggest achievement so far is founding an "Admiral Cigar Club and Lounge". The page was created by a WP:SPA. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
fails NFOOTY and appears to fail GNG too with no significant coverage Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as an improper cut-paste of the still pending Draft:Curtis J. Jones, Jr.. As always, editors are certainly allowed to write a draft in draftspace and then submit it to the approval queue, but the process does not entitle them to then immediately cut and paste their own work into mainspace while the draft is still awaiting AFC review. Bearcat ( talk) 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails to pass WP:NPOL Woinfosd ( talk) 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. The G4 nomination removals were performed by a confirmed sock. As the G4 tagging was valid, there is no need for AfD at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Karate practitioner who does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:SPORTBASIC. The article was previously deleted in 19 November 2020. Papaursa comments at the previous AfD still hold true: "According to the World Karate Federation database, Abdolmaleki has never competed at a WKF world or continental championship. [25] In terms of qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics, he is ranked in a tie for 351st in his division. [26] None of the references in the article nor anything I found in my search show significant independent coverage that would support a claim that WP:GNG is met. He does not appear to meet any WP notability criteria."
This latest article has twice been tagged with WP:G4, but the notice has been removed without explanation both times. John B123 ( talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Premature article about a radio station that was granted a license in 2020 but has not yet commenced broadcasting as of today. Simply having been given a license is not grounds for an article in and of itself — there have been many, many instances in North American broadcasting of radio stations being granted licenses by the FCC or the CRTC but then failing to actually launch within the authorized period and thus having their licenses expire, so a radio station has to actually be on the air to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:BCAST, not just get a license. So obviously this can be recreated if and when the station has actually launched, but as of February 1, 2021 the company still hasn't verifiably announced any launch date at all, which means it's not an appropriate article topic yet. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (created by a blocked user in violation of block). Mz7 ( talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The sources for this article are all self-published or do not refer to the subject in detail. His IMDb page suggests that the subject is known for being the son of a martyr, which, of course, does not confer notability. Since I have not been able to find any reliable coverage of his music- or acting-related activities, I think the article should be deleted for failure of WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Modussiccandi ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
dePRODED with no comment. Player fails WP:NRU as has only featured in the Romanian league, which is not a notable league and has only played 7s in non notable tournaments. A WP:BEFORE search only brings up transactional reports and some match reports, but this is all routine and so he also fails WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
dePRODED with no comment. Player fails WP:NRU as he has no professional appearances at all. A WP:BEFORE search brought up a couple of transaction announcements on him moving to Romania, but this is just routine and not enough to pass WP:GNG Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
dePRODED without comment, player fails WP:NRU as he has only appeared in the Romanian league which is not notable, and played in a non-notable 7s tournament. A WP:BEFORE search provided no suitable sources that would allow it to pass WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Three relists and decent arguments on all sides. Can't find a consensus here either way (del, keep, merge). Daniel ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY in every respect Smerus ( talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Notability not shown Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Recreation of a stub of previously deleted content by an editor with very little participation in Wikipedia otherwise. BD2412 T 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus that though there are sources, their quality is not sufficient to meet GNG Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Subject has a substantial number of sources, but I question their usability. They include press releases and other outright PR documents, primary sources, and pieces authored by the subject rather than about the subject. CTO of the DVA doesn't seem to be a position that confers inherent notability. BD2412 T 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Fairline Boats. Very, very selectively. Daniel ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
possible contains original research, needs formatting Larryzhao123 ( talk) 15:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thanks Larryzhao123 Have tried to improve and format page to comply with Wikipedia policies and avert deletion, please can you advise any other improvements to be made. 16:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus that sources are not sufficiently in-depth to show notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This page only has 2 sources, and most of the information is unsourced. (I can't find any more sources about her) Larryzhao123 ( talk) 15:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Govvy ( talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Andhra cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Kerala cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No indication he has played professional football to pass WP:NFOOTBALL and I don't see this passing WP:GNG at present. Govvy ( talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. On the assumption that JPL just put in one too many negatives, there is consensus that there is not enough sourcing to show notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. With the provision of additional sources, consensus that there is indeed enough to show NBOOK is met Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I found one review,
[30], little else to suggest a pass of NBOOK, though some passing coverage (
[31]) exists. It does seem to be a useful book and is cited a few times in a few places, but I haven't seen indication that it's widely cited enough or covered enough to establish notability.
Eddie891
Talk
Work
17:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The book notes:
Although the literature on war is voluminous and diverse in subject matter—with many studies devoted to causes, campaign strategies, and economic effects—very little has been published on what can be termed the "engines of war." This information gap has been bridged significantly with the publication of the twenty-four-volume Ilustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare. It will be of value to multiple audiences, including historians, military history buffs, and general readers.
The scope of the volumes is enormous. Virtually every weapon used during the twentieth century is presented. Many prototype weapons and other pieces of equipment that were never used in combat, as well as some unrealized projects that influenced subsequent develops in weaponry, are included. The arrangement is alphabetical, with the exception of a special section at the close of each volume that is devoted to artillery. Individual artillery weapons of particular note (e.g., the BAT series of British antitank guns) have detailed entries in the main body of the text. The volumes are profusely illustrated with photographs, cross-sectional diagrams, and color illustrations.
Gale said their entry is "Citation Only".
Gale said their entry is "Citation Only".
The book has received three reviews: Reference and User Services Quarterly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The Booklist review is an in-depth review. I found copies of the review through doing searches through the Google Books snippet view here and here.
The review said that Weapons and Warfare was first published in 1967 "as a consecutively published partwork issued in the United Kingdom by Phoebus". It notes that the general editor is Bernard Fitzimmons, "who has edited works on military history for Phoebus". It said that the book has three consultants: Anthony Preston (naval consultant), Bill Gunston (aviation consultant), and Ian V. Hogg (land weapons consultant), who are "established authorities and prolific writers on military affairs". It said that John Batchelor illustrated the book.
The review notes:
The review later notes:The 24 volumes include 3,000 articles, and a Classified Index is the final volume. The articles cover various types of ships, aircraft, armored fighting vehicles, small arms, and missiles as well as survey articles on artillery. Each entry begins with a definition, e.g., Italian bomber or British destroyer escort class, and concludes with technical specifications concerning size, armament, speed, crew, etc. A typical entry includes several short paragraphs on noteworthy history and particular characteristics of the weapon concerned. Entries range in length from one paragraph to five pages; they are well written, succinct, and accurate. The wide variety of well-chosen illustrations, many of which are in color and which appear on almost every page, include contemporary photographs, paintings, and diagrams. There is no bibliography, and articles are unsigned.
[additional information]
This review contains substantial background and analysis and criticism of Weapons and Warfare. I consider the reviews in Reference and User Services Quarterly and Booklist to be in-depth enough to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria criterion that "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."Weapons and Warfare is legibly printed in triple columns on coated paper and is side sewn. It is bound in plasticized paper-covered boards; the spine has been flattened with board stiffeners, which may cause early spine failure.
The information in this encyclopedia is reliable, the coverage is broad, the illustrations are attractive, and the indexing/reference structure is fairly adequate. Nevertheless, Weapons and Warfare is of somewhat dubious value as a as a reference tool: it is difficult to identify its potential audience. Scholars will find it too superficial; students will need to use it in conjunction with the more synoptic survey articles in general encyclopedias or textbooks; model builders may be better served by the standardized illustrations of various guide series; and general readers will require more interpretive information. The committee Recommends it for large and comprehensive collections but suggests that selectors for other collections carefully assess user needs before acquiring.
Booklist 77:717 Ja 15 '81 1350w
I consider 200–250 words about a book to meet the "significant coverage" requirement in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:
As long as the reviews provide significant coverage of the subject and are from reputable publications, they should be sufficient to help establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. That the publications review thousands of books a year should not affect their ability to help establish notability. An RfC would be needed to exclude reliable and in-depth reviews from publications like Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, School Library Journal, and Booklist from establishing notability because they review thousands of books."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what constitutes a match played at the highest international or domestic level ... is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source. A simple database listing of match records is not a substantial source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I can find little independent coverage of this BLP, coverage of Secker in reliable sources is entirely focused of scepticism of his courses, with accompanying rebuttals from Secker; see Financial Times [32] and [33] The Guardian [34] and BBC [35] Other citations seem to be promotional and/or self written. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:A9 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Created by a SPA, has been PRODded but the article creator reverted the PROD without explanation. The band do not have their own article so there is no redirect target, and there are no reliable independent sources. The last two sources are the band's website and their Spotify page – the Outburn article is an exact replica of the press release from the band's website. The New Noise Magazine article was an premiere of the album exclusively presented in collaboration with the band on the website, and is simply a link to stream the album, along with the press release again. The Frontview article just reports the premiere of the album on New Noise Magazine and replicates the press release yet again. The Moshville Times article is a primary source interview with the band on a non-RS website that doesn't mention the album at all. So everything is the same press release issued by the band, along with links to view the videos or stream the album. The only source which might be an RS is this review [36] but that's just one review, not multiple in-depth coverage, and I haven't found anything better – there are a couple of reviews on websites which definitely don't pass WP:RS [37], [38], and one from a promotion company that lists the band among their clients [39]. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Perfect example of why we should stop assuming notability based on one match criteria, WP:NCRIC need a revamp big time. Störm (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a futsal club called "Persatuan Futsal Selayang" but, for some reason, the content is about Selangor F.C. and Football Association of Selangor. In any case, I have done a WP:BEFORE search about the futsal club, which is supposed to be the subject of the article, and can't find evidence that it passes WP:GNG. According to the article, it competes in the "Selayang Super League", which I can also find no decent info about. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; I can't find any valid references for this 7 minute film. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG, sourced to blogs and dead links, largely created and maintained by apparent WP:COI and WP:SPA editors Melcous ( talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
notability Robingunes ( talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No coverage to demonstrate this passes WP:GNG. BEFORE comes up with no reliable sources. WP:YTN says that subscriber count is "insufficient basis by which to establish notability." Does not pass it's relevant SNG, WP:ENT, either. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an elected official. Nor has enough newspaper mentions to have an article of his own(TL; DR; Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG). He's a "state"'s president of a minor national-level political party. Not that it matters, but The party itself , and its national-level president are well known across the country though. Daiyusha ( talk) 09:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The subject is completely non-notable, has not made a single popular song, doesn't have any views on YouTube or Spotify, and doesn't appear to have had a single mention in reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Repeatedly declined at draft, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong ( talk) 09:08, 1 February 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. Daniel ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Not everyone who was an associate deputy director fifteen years ago is notable. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not notable by default, and this one is a very undistinguished ambassador. Only one foreign post, to Portugal. Moldova–Portugal relations are trivial and there exists no article on said relations. No sign of Turea meeting WP:ANYBIO. Geschichte ( talk) 07:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
A Trump nominee to the Superior Court of DC; the nomination has expired, as should this article for failing WP:JUDGE. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn after unanimous keep !votes. postdlf ( talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Nowadays the list is impossible to keep up to date as there must be hundreds of them. Even if you could keep it up to date it would be far too long. Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This was an expired prod with the rationale: "This page does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Its notability has been contested since 2011, and it does not appear that the page has been edited in over three years". Alas, it has been at AFD before with no consensus. Geschichte ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is unsourced, and after some search, I've concluded that it is completely unsourceable. A books search found a single book that mentioned the word while saying nothing at all about it, and news searches found nothing, while standard web searches found nothing that counts as a reliable source.
This appears to have been a short-lived passing fad that disappeared with the popularity of mobile internet. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
there's a grain elevator there, and going all the way back to 1915 we have the ever-helpful Railroad Commission of California discussing the Citrona Warehouse for storing grain. That's all the topos and aerials ever show here, so I'm going to say that this is yet another NN rail spot. Mangoe ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
360Learning is a startup company involved in professional development activities, but what this firm did with his product is unknown. This article has been created by the chief marketing officer of the time. The only interesting thing I found was his book and this interview, but he left the company in 2017 to set up his company. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything in books to improve this article… Genium . 04:14, Feb 1, 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. An unreleased song without commercial availability. No in-depth discussion regarding the song's music and lyrics. Has not even charted. While I could have assumed WP:BOLD and redirected it somewhere, it appears there is not really an appropriate target page to redirect this to (should it be ASAP Rocky discography--while this is not at all mentioned there; or List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey--although Lana Del Rey is only a guest artist?). That is why I have proposed this for AFD. HĐ ( talk) 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hamleys. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." (outside numerous mentions that he founded Hamleys) It was deprodded with no meaningful rationale. I couldn't find anything else in my search to suggest he is known outside this single event (founding of a company named after his family). I couldn't find even his dates of birth or deaths, and the location of birth given in our article may be an error, although "a William Hamley", born there, was a father of a Royal Navy officer: [40]. Unless we can find better sources, I think the best non-hard deletion option that can be justified would be redirecting to Hamleys where the subject is mentioned. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe this should be merged into the Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration page or should be draftified. The page, on its own, does not appear to be written in an encyclopedic format (a large portion of the page is a bulleted list), and the page is focused on a piece of legislation that does not yet appear to have been written nor introduced in the congress. The first source is not an RS, but instead a website dedicated to providing a "easy, convenient way to find financial advisors in your area." The other two sources appear to refer only to Biden's outline of the plan and refer to a speech that Biden gave rather than to the text of any actual document. The article needs work, and the details of the plan do not appear to be public yet. Thus, I see two options: draftify the page and work on it before republishing it, or merge it into the more general economic policy page associated with the Presidency of Joe Biden. I am looking to see what others think. Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)