![]() |
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement -- and non-notable. The areticles consists of a list of services, the references are notice or promotional and fail WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP with no actual references, and no real evidence of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
WH was for three years an extremely efficient content warrior at nlwiki. He used at least two accounts to !vote and had a team of like-minded folks who supported each other's content wars. Eventually he was blocked for sockpuppetry. [1] Approximately the same time, at work, he also made some bad decisions and was fired from a senior public position. It wasn't criminal so they had to buy him out. This was well covered in the press. Nothing of this case and his main career appears in this WP:COI article, nor does one case of alleged plagiarism that also drew attention. While he technically passes the WP:GNG, WH is not very important, the article is highly selective, and it is all too minor to dig into. His publishing house or his publishing from his house clearly fails the WP:GNG and can be deleted. gidonb ( talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Believe this fails WP:NBASE. Clearly written by someone with personal connection to him, Holmes never played in the Negro major leagues, doesn't have a profile James Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues even though it was previously sourced in the article. No information/stats on Seamheads or Baseball-Reference. The Boston Globe write up, the article's main source, reads more like a person recounting his opinions of various ballplayers. Found another Boston Globe article calling the Boston Royal Giants a semi-pro team during this time. I don't see a mention of him in the other source, Shades of Glory. Also didn't see anything turn up in Newspapers.com for Massachusetts or Pennsylvania from 1928 to 1945. Penale52 ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos. Daniel ( talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This article fails the guideline for web notability. As it was something that the cast of Drake and Josh did alongside other Nickelodeon stars years ago. But thinking a redirect to the main article for Drake and Josh would be best for this article, if not go through with the deletion process. Pahiy ( talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no English-language RS coverage of this person. Looking at his Russian Wikipedia page, there are no RS cited there either, except for press release style stories. Unless, significant coverage can be demonstrated in non-English independent reliable sources, this page should be deleted. As it stands, it's just a glorified Linkedin bio, which is not what WP articles should be. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This article relies entirely on a Q&A in a blog and a routine transfer announcement and so notability is not demonstrated. I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search through Google News and through DDG and was unable to find any significant coverage in the player's native language.
No evidence can be found to suggest that Amirkhanlou is notable enough to pass WP:GNG and hence warrant an encyclopaedia article about him. Also worth noting that futsal players don't qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL and so absolutely must demonstrate GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Arthur (TV series). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 22:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Following a Google News search and Iranian source search in the player's native language, I was unable to locate even one example of significant coverage. Therefore, there is no evidence of a WP:GNG pass, as the two cited sources also fail to meet requirements. Futsal players are not eligible for any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL either and are required to pass GNG to qualify for an article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject of this article may not meet the notability and web notability guidelines. 'Ridge ( Converse, Create, & Fascinate ) 21:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG according to sources cited and ones found during a WP:BEFORE search. It's worth noting that WP:NFOOTBALL does not cover futsal so there is no presumption of notability that can be applied to any of his roles (the roles that he has taken in football are far too insignificant to grant automatic notability). Full source analysis to follow, which will include sources that I found myself. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Appears that there is a reasonable consensus that he meets WP:NPROF C1 or C8 (or both). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
While certainly accomplished, there is not enough in-depth coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and he does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 New York City mayoral election#Libertarian Party. —ScottyWong— 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ENT, and references do not satisfy WP:BASIC. References are all either primary sources or contain only minor mentions of Prussman. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
has entire articles in major sources written about her, then let's see them. Because there aren't any currently cited in her article. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Per author's talk Girth Summit (blether) 22:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Student radio station. No sources, no indication of significance, but A7 doesn't cover radio stations. Girth Summit (blether) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.If they cannot do so, this topic will fail the GNG and thus be deleted. In that event, even if it doesn't qualify for its own article, mention may be merited in Workington Academy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clear consensus exists that the interviews do not contribute sufficient notability. Daniel ( talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Assistant prof with h index of 11. Had some media attention for metallic hydrogen and was co-author of a paper with >350 cites back in 2017. But is this enough to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG? I'm not convinced. Plus might be WP:TOOSOON to know if the 2020 superconductivity result is actually notable. Kj cheetham ( talk) 15:04, 29 June 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 23:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no English-language RS coverage of this person. Looking at his Azerbaijani Wikipedia page, there are no RS cited there either. Unless, significant coverage can be demonstrated in non-English independent reliable sources, this page should be deleted. As it stands, it's just a glorified Linkedin bio, which is not what WP articles should be. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable award. I can only find links associated with this award. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:34, 27 June 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) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as G7. Geschichte ( talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No need for disambiguation - this is the only Wikipedia page that mentions Ctelnet. Leschnei ( talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Unreferenced article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Harun al-Rashid. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a daughter of Harun al Rashid which isn’t actually about her at all, but about her male relatives. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage of her to make her notable. Mccapra ( talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 06:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
it's a mess, rambling OR essay. The term - as coined by Schaeffer - is for the most part associated with musique concrete, best we redirect to a single paragraph in the musique concrete article instead. Acous mana 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not independent notable from her father Imangali Tasmagambetov and husband Kenes Rakishev. Lack of independent in-depth coverage. The article is mostly not about her, but promotion of philanthropy by this group.
Note the ruwiki entry was created by the same creator on the same day, so is not a sign of interest in the topic. Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this is a non-notable guru. Article is all over the place, with everything from dandruff remedies to blood donation. Article would need to be re-written. Sources do not seem notable from my brief looks, and do not contribute to notability from my point of view. PabloMartinez ( talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable university society. Article relies entirely on primary sources. A search for reliable sources doesn't turn anything up Dexxtrall ( talk) 16:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. No soft-delete due to being totally unreferenced. Daniel ( talk) 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Triple parentheses. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Previously merged into Triple parentheses as an adjacent topic not notable enough for its own bespoke article. Has been recreated since and there is an ongoing edit war over it. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources are only statistics databases with no prose discussion of this player's career. This does not constitute significant coverage or establish notability. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability, nothing like WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:VERIFYOR and WP:GNG. One primary external link without secondary and tertiary coverage. Possible original reserach Bash7oven ( talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No sign of notability as it's stated in the following guidelines WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFYOR. The article cannot boast with significant coverage. Bash7oven ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominating along with Mort Dinner Rick Andre; I fail to see how this episode is notable as well; being an episode of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how this episode deserves an article; being the first episode of a season of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:45, 12 July 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) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Medical centre with no clear indication of notability. No refs other than its own website. PepperBeast (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus to keep and rework. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH list which includes disparate structures that happen to sometimes be described as pyramids, though no reliable source exists that groups all of them together. Paul_012 ( talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The WP:LEAD even says
Due to lack of precise criteria, the list is unranked.This is however perfectly WP:SURMOUNTABLE; I suggest that entries should meet two criteria: (1) being described by a consensus of WP:Reliable sources as a "pyramid" (i.e. not "pyramidal", "pyramid-shaped", or "in the shape of a pyramid") and (2) meeting some minimum height requirement, say 50 meters.
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This earthquake is one of the aftershocks of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. but this earthquake is less damaging than the 2021 Fukushima earthquake that occurred a month ago. Also, Max intensity is 5+ and no more than 6. Eleven people were injured, but no one was killed. I think it is not uncommon for an earthquake of this magnitude to occur in Japan. -- Miamiaim ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The article was created by
Nlaskin who appears to be the primary author of this concept. There are long standing concerns on the talk page over this COI and promotional bias. I quote from
178.197.232.148 at the talk page As mentioned elsewhere, this theory is an ad hoc modification of quantum mechanics without any serious motivation or application. It is also the fruit of one person, which has not attracted interest or recognition in the physics community. Also, the number of times the author's name is mentioned on this page and on the page on Fractional Schrödinger equation is striking.
Fractional Schrödinger equation currently redirects here, but the author is persistently recreating it. This redirect should also be deleted.
Polyamorph (
talk)
14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages as detailed in my nom above, it is nothing more than a vanity project by Nlaskin
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Materialscientist ( talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable product, lacks significant coverage to the point where the information present is not verifiable. Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry if the article is too simple but I will add more information and creat more articles about other new Greek UAVs that were presented recently. Just like every article, it is simple at first but I hope that it will be improved if other users contribute too. (Historyandscience)
Hoax ??? I though the problem was that it was too simple and small or not important. You guys have a great imagination, search Greek News and you will see about the presentation of dozens of new Greek combat machines happening at this moment.
The result was redirect to Luman L. Cadwell. ✗ plicit 09:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Aberdeen for another work by this same page creator. The cited source is Dyer 1908 p. 739, which simply states Sept. 20 ... Skirmish, Bayou Alabama in a list of battles of in Louisiana. Dyer 1908 p. 595 also mentions this action, but just to say Alabama Bayou, La. -- Skir. ... Sept. 20, 1864. So I have no idea where the result, location, and commanders listed in the article are coming from, as they have no support in the cited source.
This does support that there was a skirmish on Sept. 20 at Bayou Alabama, but says nothing in-depth, as its just a table. Likewise, this is just a passing mention in a list as well. This states that it was part of the Operations in the Vicinity of Morganza, but not much else. This explains it all - 225 Union cavalrymen broke up a small Confederate camp. However, it's a primary source report and can't be used for notability. Short mention here, but it's mainly just Luman L. Cadwell's Medal of Honor citation. I don't think enough has been written in non-primary sources for this minor skirmish to meet WP:GNG, even if a Medal of Honor was won in it. Hog Farm Talk 16:26, 26 June 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 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity ( talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Article is not notable. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi ( talk) 09:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
VIP News article appears to have no notablity whatsoever. I say it should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The last AfD was six weeks ago. If people think that a merge is appropriate that can be done through a merge discussion. If the feeling is that the outcome of the last AfD was incorrect, then
WP:DRV is the correct place to challenge that. But as our
consensus poplicy notes, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive
and as such I am speedily closing this discussion.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
14:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Relevance? User:Rilum originally created this article on the German Wikipedia ( de:Korancode), saw it deleted there multiple times and now creates it on various Wikipedias. To show this article deserves it? On the Dutch (and French) Wikipedia it was created in the user namespace and then move to the main space, on the English Wikipedia this article was imported from the German Wikipedia. I think it might be wise to discuss if this article is allowed on Wikipedia. Trijnstel talk 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)use
The result was redirect to Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994. Sandstein 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the accomplishments of these two singers; however they should be linked in articles as Bettan and Jan Werner, i.e. as individuals performing together, rather than as a group. (Incidentally, they already are linked as two individuals at the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 page.) Yes, they performed together after ESC 1994 too, but they also performed in constellations with a multitude of other singers. Geschichte ( talk) 09:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't qualify WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC. XYZ leaders congratulated. Promo articles. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 09:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Usually, an article about a relatively unknown musician would not be notable however this particular musician has supposedly won an Artist of the Year award, making them slightly more notable. I am not sure if this meets the threshold for notability however. Osarius 08:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. fails WP:NSCHOOL. DMySon ( talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT. This probably belongs at some sister project (as I already raised on the talk page in 2009...), but which one? I don't know if Wiktionary hosts such lists. But Wikipedia is not the place for such grammatical lists. Fram ( talk) 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."Any Latin grammar—and there are several notable ones—will describe the existence of first-declension masculine nouns as an exception to the general rule that first-declension nouns are usually feminine, and typically some examples will be provided (typically "agricola, nauta, pirata"). The topic of this article clearly meets the criteria for notability, although it might benefit from more citations. The fact that the list of examples is much longer than that found in Latin grammars doesn't affect its notability.
The result was merge to Ronald Duncan. Sandstein 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering this short-lived piece of lost media. Fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the company is notable, and was ever notable. No clear website, seems that we missed this at every point. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Weak keep or no consensus, but the outcome is the same. Sandstein 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 00:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Blatant advertising for a non-notable company. I queued this for CSD, but two IPs removed the CSD tag, so here we are. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Possible COI, more on User talk:Pranesh walawalkar and User talk:Djuulume. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
in the sources the clan is barely mentioned MPGuy2824 ( talk) 07:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a minor diplomat without much notable history. The only sources for him that exist (I searched the Web as well as newspapers, etc) are a couple-sentence mention in a WP:MILL article saying that he delivered a letter to an Algerian foreign minister, and a liveblog from Al Jazeera that doesn't mention him by name (the ambassador to Algeria is mentioned in a long list of resignations submitted). No information about the guy seems to exist online apart from the twenty-six words in this article (which, indeed, is much shorter than the AfD nomination I'm writing for it). jp× g 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete (G4). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
this article is clearly promotional and fails GNG Iamfarzan ( talk) 04:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This topic does not seem to have been discussed as a group or set - sources mention individual albums being available in multiple formats, and the existence of multiple of these formats, but not which albums are available in what ways as a group; WP:LISTN does not seem to be met. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Recently declined a draft by TheBirdsShedTears. Do not meet General notability criteria. fails WP:GNG DMySon ( talk) 04:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Genealogy cruft. List topic is essentially a list of obscure and non-notable individuals; the Capetian dynasty has not actually ruled in many years. WP:BEFORE suggests this is a topic of not much interest. Doesn't seem to meet GNG and isn't really an encyclopedic list topic. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Keep arguments were not based on policies or guidelines. ✗ plicit 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fighter under top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and subject also fails GNG as info and fights record are merely routine reports. Cassiopeia( talk) 03:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
man this guy is huge now why in gods name would he not get a wiki page that’s just stupid— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:91dc:dd00:d5d7:40f1:324d:bd3a ( talk) 12:31, July 16, 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Article on subject was deleted in 2020 in AFD and no apparent change in notability since then. GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk) 01:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to San Jose del Monte#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest discussion for barangay articles at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, retained the consensus that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles. In other words, barangay notability should be treated through case-to-case basis.
For this barangay, it is unsourced since March 2009, and no one attempted to improve this. It also has an unsourced (and potentially unencyclopedic) list of officials. Much of its information can be incorporated at San Jose del Monte instead. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to San Jose del Monte#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest discussion for barangay articles at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, retained the consensus that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles. In other words, barangay notability should be treated through case-to-case basis.
For this barangay, it is unsourced since March 2009, and no one attempted to improve this. More of a stub-like article, its information can be incorporated at San Jose del Monte instead. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 01:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.
PROD removed because "The film was featured at Cannes, should be notable enough.", but a release at a film festival isn't enough to pass notability requirements. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a four-page review of The Monkey Kid. The review notes: "The Monkey Kid, written and directed by Xiao-Yen Wang, is probably one of the best Chinese feature films ever made but few Americans have seen. Released in 1995 by the BeijingSan Francisco Film Group, the film “was an Official Selection at the 1995 Cannes International Film Festival and received the Grand Prize at the 1996 Aubervilliers International Children’s Film Festival, awards for Best Film and Best Director at the 1995 Danube Film Festival, Best Foreign Film at the 1995 Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival, the Young Jury Award at the 1996 International Women’s Film Festival at Créteil, and the Critic’s Prize at the Cinestival 97 at Marseille.” Despite its critical acclaim, The Monkey Kid was not available for distribution until December 2010."
The review concludes: "The Monkey Kid is not a new film, but educators should not be afraid to use it in the classroom. It is especially helpful for illustrating the many ways in which Mao’s cult of personality dominated this era. It offers a view of the Cultural Revolution that is both compelling and entertaining. I have used the film with great success in both undergraduate and graduate classes on modern China. Students report that more than any other film about the Cultural Revolution, The Monkey Kid stays with them long after its showing in class because of the story line, the acting of the children, and the effective direction. The film always generates much discussion about class divisions, ideological education, and mass mobilization. I highly recommend the film for high school and college audiences."
The book notes: "A low-budget, noncommercial film ($30,000), The Monkey Kid does not have the technical refinement or the authorial complexity of In the Heat of the Sun. ... It is a precocious coming-of-age story where the local bullies are mischievous little boys peeing in Thermos bottles. ... If The Monkey Kid is perhaps a little too sweet (and the music, relying on the Chinese flute 'dizi' gives it a rather exotic, Oriental flavor), then there are other renderings by women of the Cultural Revolution with more of a bite."
The film review notes: "A neat idea gets a vigorous but incomplete workout in 'The Monkey Kid,' a loose portrait of an ankle-biter's everyday life during the depths of the Cultural Revolution that has charm to spare. Though this feather-light indie production by California-based Xiao-yen Wang, based on her own childhood in Peking, has some darker resonances for those willing to dig for them, pic represents a marketing challenge beyond cable and other broadcast outings."
The film reviewer gave the film an A-. The film review notes: "Xiao-Yen Wang's excellent, award-winning, semiautobiographical film, The Monkey Kid, is about this climate as seen through the eyes of Wang Shiwie (Fu Di), a 9-year-old girl determined to be a kid regardless of the historical changes whirling about her. Sparked by Fu Di's performance, The Monkey Kid is a simple, yet essential film about the indomitable human spirit, and a young girl's courage to be herself in spite of a dictatorship gone mad. It should not be missed."
The film review notes: "Variously tender and tough-minded, Xiao-Yen Wang's loosely autobiographical The Monkey Kid traces episodes in the life of a spirited nine-year-old girl growing up in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. Set in a 1970 Beijing of stark, slabby apartments, dingy side streets and doctrinaire schools, it celebrates independence and self-will, depicting how Chairman Mao's regimental reforms impacted on one child and her family."
The film review notes: "The Monkey Kid is an unforgettable tale of a bright, enchanting young girl who grows up during the harsh era of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. ... Filmed in Beijing from January through March, 1993, with an additional day in August to shoot in the rain, the movie is set in 1970, at a time when China's 'intellectuals' had been sent to the country to 'learn from the peasants.' ... The movie, in Mandarin with English subtitles, is a production of the Beijing-San Francisco Film Group, which produced Wang's 1991 documentary, The Blank Point, which looked at transsexualism as seen through the traditional gaze of Chinese society. The Monkey Kid, Wang's first feature film, moves at a deliciously lazy pace that may seem like anathema to the slam-bash-bang formula of American moviemaking standards."
The film review notes: "But 'The Monkey Kid' isn't just a movie about oppression. It's a tender profile of a family, and the bond between mother and daughter that transcends political and social circumstances. 'The Monkey Kid,' shot without government approval on the back streets of Beijing, screens at 7 tonight at the Ritz at the Bourse, as part of the Philadelphia Festival of World Cinema."
The article notes: "That 'The Monkey Kid' is the more modest and conventionally structured of the two in no way detracts from its impact as a moving study of a 9-year-old girl who rebels against the crushing effects of the Cultural Revolution by being a bad girl. ... Tacitly encouraged by her mother, Fu Di devises ways of sliding out from under the death grip of the Revolution that will make you want to cheer."
The article notes: "The Monkey Kid in Mandarin with English subtitles, is an autobiographical film about 9-year-old Shi-Wei and her older sister, who care for themselves while their parents, branded as intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution, are sent to work in the countryside. Xio-Yen Wang made this film in her native village and smuggled it out of China. She now lives in California and will attend Saturday's screening to answer questions."
The article notes: "The American picture, 'The Monkey Kid,' is really a Chinese film, by the Beijing Film Academy-trained Xiao-Yen Wang. Shot in Beijing without approval, it is a realistic portrayal of a child's tomfoolery during the Cultural Revolution, when her parents were sent into the countryside to be 're-educated.'"
The book has an entry about the film's director, Wang Xiao-yen. The book notes: "In 1993, without a permit, she returned to Beijing to shoot The Monkey Kid (Hou San'r, completed in 1995), based on her experiences as a mischievous nine-year-old during the Cultural Revolution while her parents had been 'sent down' for 're-education'."
The review notes: "By choosing her own path, Shi-Wei manages to escape the drab, dull rhythms of the Cultural Revolution. Comparisons to Truffaut's '400 Blows' are inevitable, but Wang acquits herself admirably with 'The Monkey Kid,' her first feature."
The review notes in French: "Chronique émue et sentimentale d'une enfance lointaine, The Monkey Kid est une petite narration, réalisée avec des moyens modestes, en tenant compte des difficultés qu'il y a, aujourd'hui en Chine, à tourner un film dans des décors réels sur une époque que l'on préfère oublier. Parce que les enfants y sont bien photographiés, sans attendrissement ni condescendance, le film dispense un certain charme, mais la légèreté de l'analyse historique (voulue ou obligée ?"
From Google Translate: "A moving and sentimental chronicle of a distant childhood, The Monkey Kid is a short narration, produced with modest means, taking into account the difficulties that there are, today in China, to shoot a film in real settings on a time that we prefer to forget. Because the children are well photographed there, without tenderness or condescension, the film dispenses a certain charm, but the lightness of the historical analysis (wanted or obliged?"
The article notes: "Xiao-Yen did submit her script for The Monkey Kid to China's film bureau and made some changes at official request, such as eliminating a Mao quotation and inserting one of his poems. However, when it became impossible to obtain official permission,, she and her husband hired children from an acting studio by contacting their parents outside the school. Xiao-Yen confessed that she was pretty scared after she finished shooting. Still, she and her husband managed to edit the film in China, then eluded airport authorities and smuggled the footage out of the country in three suitcases."
The article notes: "On the other hand, the decidedly low-budget look in The Monkey Kid makes the actors and the script work harder. Although suffering from a general flatness of tone, the film--whose central character is a ten-year-old girl, Shi Wei, growing up during the Cultural Revolution--has some poignant moments."
The article notes that the film's Chinese name is 猴三儿 and discusses the film in detail.
![]() |
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement -- and non-notable. The areticles consists of a list of services, the references are notice or promotional and fail WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP with no actual references, and no real evidence of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
WH was for three years an extremely efficient content warrior at nlwiki. He used at least two accounts to !vote and had a team of like-minded folks who supported each other's content wars. Eventually he was blocked for sockpuppetry. [1] Approximately the same time, at work, he also made some bad decisions and was fired from a senior public position. It wasn't criminal so they had to buy him out. This was well covered in the press. Nothing of this case and his main career appears in this WP:COI article, nor does one case of alleged plagiarism that also drew attention. While he technically passes the WP:GNG, WH is not very important, the article is highly selective, and it is all too minor to dig into. His publishing house or his publishing from his house clearly fails the WP:GNG and can be deleted. gidonb ( talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Believe this fails WP:NBASE. Clearly written by someone with personal connection to him, Holmes never played in the Negro major leagues, doesn't have a profile James Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues even though it was previously sourced in the article. No information/stats on Seamheads or Baseball-Reference. The Boston Globe write up, the article's main source, reads more like a person recounting his opinions of various ballplayers. Found another Boston Globe article calling the Boston Royal Giants a semi-pro team during this time. I don't see a mention of him in the other source, Shades of Glory. Also didn't see anything turn up in Newspapers.com for Massachusetts or Pennsylvania from 1928 to 1945. Penale52 ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos. Daniel ( talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This article fails the guideline for web notability. As it was something that the cast of Drake and Josh did alongside other Nickelodeon stars years ago. But thinking a redirect to the main article for Drake and Josh would be best for this article, if not go through with the deletion process. Pahiy ( talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no English-language RS coverage of this person. Looking at his Russian Wikipedia page, there are no RS cited there either, except for press release style stories. Unless, significant coverage can be demonstrated in non-English independent reliable sources, this page should be deleted. As it stands, it's just a glorified Linkedin bio, which is not what WP articles should be. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This article relies entirely on a Q&A in a blog and a routine transfer announcement and so notability is not demonstrated. I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search through Google News and through DDG and was unable to find any significant coverage in the player's native language.
No evidence can be found to suggest that Amirkhanlou is notable enough to pass WP:GNG and hence warrant an encyclopaedia article about him. Also worth noting that futsal players don't qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL and so absolutely must demonstrate GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Arthur (TV series). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 22:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Following a Google News search and Iranian source search in the player's native language, I was unable to locate even one example of significant coverage. Therefore, there is no evidence of a WP:GNG pass, as the two cited sources also fail to meet requirements. Futsal players are not eligible for any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL either and are required to pass GNG to qualify for an article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject of this article may not meet the notability and web notability guidelines. 'Ridge ( Converse, Create, & Fascinate ) 21:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG according to sources cited and ones found during a WP:BEFORE search. It's worth noting that WP:NFOOTBALL does not cover futsal so there is no presumption of notability that can be applied to any of his roles (the roles that he has taken in football are far too insignificant to grant automatic notability). Full source analysis to follow, which will include sources that I found myself. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Appears that there is a reasonable consensus that he meets WP:NPROF C1 or C8 (or both). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
While certainly accomplished, there is not enough in-depth coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and he does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 New York City mayoral election#Libertarian Party. —ScottyWong— 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ENT, and references do not satisfy WP:BASIC. References are all either primary sources or contain only minor mentions of Prussman. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
has entire articles in major sources written about her, then let's see them. Because there aren't any currently cited in her article. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Per author's talk Girth Summit (blether) 22:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Student radio station. No sources, no indication of significance, but A7 doesn't cover radio stations. Girth Summit (blether) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.If they cannot do so, this topic will fail the GNG and thus be deleted. In that event, even if it doesn't qualify for its own article, mention may be merited in Workington Academy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clear consensus exists that the interviews do not contribute sufficient notability. Daniel ( talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Assistant prof with h index of 11. Had some media attention for metallic hydrogen and was co-author of a paper with >350 cites back in 2017. But is this enough to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG? I'm not convinced. Plus might be WP:TOOSOON to know if the 2020 superconductivity result is actually notable. Kj cheetham ( talk) 15:04, 29 June 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 23:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no English-language RS coverage of this person. Looking at his Azerbaijani Wikipedia page, there are no RS cited there either. Unless, significant coverage can be demonstrated in non-English independent reliable sources, this page should be deleted. As it stands, it's just a glorified Linkedin bio, which is not what WP articles should be. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable award. I can only find links associated with this award. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:34, 27 June 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) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as G7. Geschichte ( talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No need for disambiguation - this is the only Wikipedia page that mentions Ctelnet. Leschnei ( talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Unreferenced article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Harun al-Rashid. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Biography of a daughter of Harun al Rashid which isn’t actually about her at all, but about her male relatives. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage of her to make her notable. Mccapra ( talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 06:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
it's a mess, rambling OR essay. The term - as coined by Schaeffer - is for the most part associated with musique concrete, best we redirect to a single paragraph in the musique concrete article instead. Acous mana 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not independent notable from her father Imangali Tasmagambetov and husband Kenes Rakishev. Lack of independent in-depth coverage. The article is mostly not about her, but promotion of philanthropy by this group.
Note the ruwiki entry was created by the same creator on the same day, so is not a sign of interest in the topic. Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this is a non-notable guru. Article is all over the place, with everything from dandruff remedies to blood donation. Article would need to be re-written. Sources do not seem notable from my brief looks, and do not contribute to notability from my point of view. PabloMartinez ( talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable university society. Article relies entirely on primary sources. A search for reliable sources doesn't turn anything up Dexxtrall ( talk) 16:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. No soft-delete due to being totally unreferenced. Daniel ( talk) 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Triple parentheses. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Previously merged into Triple parentheses as an adjacent topic not notable enough for its own bespoke article. Has been recreated since and there is an ongoing edit war over it. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources are only statistics databases with no prose discussion of this player's career. This does not constitute significant coverage or establish notability. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability, nothing like WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:VERIFYOR and WP:GNG. One primary external link without secondary and tertiary coverage. Possible original reserach Bash7oven ( talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No sign of notability as it's stated in the following guidelines WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFYOR. The article cannot boast with significant coverage. Bash7oven ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominating along with Mort Dinner Rick Andre; I fail to see how this episode is notable as well; being an episode of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how this episode deserves an article; being the first episode of a season of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:45, 12 July 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) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Medical centre with no clear indication of notability. No refs other than its own website. PepperBeast (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus to keep and rework. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH list which includes disparate structures that happen to sometimes be described as pyramids, though no reliable source exists that groups all of them together. Paul_012 ( talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The WP:LEAD even says
Due to lack of precise criteria, the list is unranked.This is however perfectly WP:SURMOUNTABLE; I suggest that entries should meet two criteria: (1) being described by a consensus of WP:Reliable sources as a "pyramid" (i.e. not "pyramidal", "pyramid-shaped", or "in the shape of a pyramid") and (2) meeting some minimum height requirement, say 50 meters.
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This earthquake is one of the aftershocks of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. but this earthquake is less damaging than the 2021 Fukushima earthquake that occurred a month ago. Also, Max intensity is 5+ and no more than 6. Eleven people were injured, but no one was killed. I think it is not uncommon for an earthquake of this magnitude to occur in Japan. -- Miamiaim ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The article was created by
Nlaskin who appears to be the primary author of this concept. There are long standing concerns on the talk page over this COI and promotional bias. I quote from
178.197.232.148 at the talk page As mentioned elsewhere, this theory is an ad hoc modification of quantum mechanics without any serious motivation or application. It is also the fruit of one person, which has not attracted interest or recognition in the physics community. Also, the number of times the author's name is mentioned on this page and on the page on Fractional Schrödinger equation is striking.
Fractional Schrödinger equation currently redirects here, but the author is persistently recreating it. This redirect should also be deleted.
Polyamorph (
talk)
14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages as detailed in my nom above, it is nothing more than a vanity project by Nlaskin
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Materialscientist ( talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable product, lacks significant coverage to the point where the information present is not verifiable. Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry if the article is too simple but I will add more information and creat more articles about other new Greek UAVs that were presented recently. Just like every article, it is simple at first but I hope that it will be improved if other users contribute too. (Historyandscience)
Hoax ??? I though the problem was that it was too simple and small or not important. You guys have a great imagination, search Greek News and you will see about the presentation of dozens of new Greek combat machines happening at this moment.
The result was redirect to Luman L. Cadwell. ✗ plicit 09:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Aberdeen for another work by this same page creator. The cited source is Dyer 1908 p. 739, which simply states Sept. 20 ... Skirmish, Bayou Alabama in a list of battles of in Louisiana. Dyer 1908 p. 595 also mentions this action, but just to say Alabama Bayou, La. -- Skir. ... Sept. 20, 1864. So I have no idea where the result, location, and commanders listed in the article are coming from, as they have no support in the cited source.
This does support that there was a skirmish on Sept. 20 at Bayou Alabama, but says nothing in-depth, as its just a table. Likewise, this is just a passing mention in a list as well. This states that it was part of the Operations in the Vicinity of Morganza, but not much else. This explains it all - 225 Union cavalrymen broke up a small Confederate camp. However, it's a primary source report and can't be used for notability. Short mention here, but it's mainly just Luman L. Cadwell's Medal of Honor citation. I don't think enough has been written in non-primary sources for this minor skirmish to meet WP:GNG, even if a Medal of Honor was won in it. Hog Farm Talk 16:26, 26 June 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 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity ( talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Article is not notable. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi ( talk) 09:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
VIP News article appears to have no notablity whatsoever. I say it should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The last AfD was six weeks ago. If people think that a merge is appropriate that can be done through a merge discussion. If the feeling is that the outcome of the last AfD was incorrect, then
WP:DRV is the correct place to challenge that. But as our
consensus poplicy notes, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive
and as such I am speedily closing this discussion.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
14:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Relevance? User:Rilum originally created this article on the German Wikipedia ( de:Korancode), saw it deleted there multiple times and now creates it on various Wikipedias. To show this article deserves it? On the Dutch (and French) Wikipedia it was created in the user namespace and then move to the main space, on the English Wikipedia this article was imported from the German Wikipedia. I think it might be wise to discuss if this article is allowed on Wikipedia. Trijnstel talk 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)use
The result was redirect to Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994. Sandstein 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the accomplishments of these two singers; however they should be linked in articles as Bettan and Jan Werner, i.e. as individuals performing together, rather than as a group. (Incidentally, they already are linked as two individuals at the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 page.) Yes, they performed together after ESC 1994 too, but they also performed in constellations with a multitude of other singers. Geschichte ( talk) 09:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't qualify WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC. XYZ leaders congratulated. Promo articles. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 09:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Usually, an article about a relatively unknown musician would not be notable however this particular musician has supposedly won an Artist of the Year award, making them slightly more notable. I am not sure if this meets the threshold for notability however. Osarius 08:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. fails WP:NSCHOOL. DMySon ( talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT. This probably belongs at some sister project (as I already raised on the talk page in 2009...), but which one? I don't know if Wiktionary hosts such lists. But Wikipedia is not the place for such grammatical lists. Fram ( talk) 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."Any Latin grammar—and there are several notable ones—will describe the existence of first-declension masculine nouns as an exception to the general rule that first-declension nouns are usually feminine, and typically some examples will be provided (typically "agricola, nauta, pirata"). The topic of this article clearly meets the criteria for notability, although it might benefit from more citations. The fact that the list of examples is much longer than that found in Latin grammars doesn't affect its notability.
The result was merge to Ronald Duncan. Sandstein 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering this short-lived piece of lost media. Fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the company is notable, and was ever notable. No clear website, seems that we missed this at every point. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Weak keep or no consensus, but the outcome is the same. Sandstein 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 00:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Blatant advertising for a non-notable company. I queued this for CSD, but two IPs removed the CSD tag, so here we are. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Possible COI, more on User talk:Pranesh walawalkar and User talk:Djuulume. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
in the sources the clan is barely mentioned MPGuy2824 ( talk) 07:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 09:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a minor diplomat without much notable history. The only sources for him that exist (I searched the Web as well as newspapers, etc) are a couple-sentence mention in a WP:MILL article saying that he delivered a letter to an Algerian foreign minister, and a liveblog from Al Jazeera that doesn't mention him by name (the ambassador to Algeria is mentioned in a long list of resignations submitted). No information about the guy seems to exist online apart from the twenty-six words in this article (which, indeed, is much shorter than the AfD nomination I'm writing for it). jp× g 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete (G4). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
this article is clearly promotional and fails GNG Iamfarzan ( talk) 04:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This topic does not seem to have been discussed as a group or set - sources mention individual albums being available in multiple formats, and the existence of multiple of these formats, but not which albums are available in what ways as a group; WP:LISTN does not seem to be met. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Recently declined a draft by TheBirdsShedTears. Do not meet General notability criteria. fails WP:GNG DMySon ( talk) 04:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Genealogy cruft. List topic is essentially a list of obscure and non-notable individuals; the Capetian dynasty has not actually ruled in many years. WP:BEFORE suggests this is a topic of not much interest. Doesn't seem to meet GNG and isn't really an encyclopedic list topic. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Keep arguments were not based on policies or guidelines. ✗ plicit 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fighter under top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and subject also fails GNG as info and fights record are merely routine reports. Cassiopeia( talk) 03:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
man this guy is huge now why in gods name would he not get a wiki page that’s just stupid— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:91dc:dd00:d5d7:40f1:324d:bd3a ( talk) 12:31, July 16, 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Article on subject was deleted in 2020 in AFD and no apparent change in notability since then. GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk) 01:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to San Jose del Monte#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest discussion for barangay articles at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, retained the consensus that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles. In other words, barangay notability should be treated through case-to-case basis.
For this barangay, it is unsourced since March 2009, and no one attempted to improve this. It also has an unsourced (and potentially unencyclopedic) list of officials. Much of its information can be incorporated at San Jose del Monte instead. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to San Jose del Monte#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest discussion for barangay articles at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, retained the consensus that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles. In other words, barangay notability should be treated through case-to-case basis.
For this barangay, it is unsourced since March 2009, and no one attempted to improve this. More of a stub-like article, its information can be incorporated at San Jose del Monte instead. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 01:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.
PROD removed because "The film was featured at Cannes, should be notable enough.", but a release at a film festival isn't enough to pass notability requirements. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a four-page review of The Monkey Kid. The review notes: "The Monkey Kid, written and directed by Xiao-Yen Wang, is probably one of the best Chinese feature films ever made but few Americans have seen. Released in 1995 by the BeijingSan Francisco Film Group, the film “was an Official Selection at the 1995 Cannes International Film Festival and received the Grand Prize at the 1996 Aubervilliers International Children’s Film Festival, awards for Best Film and Best Director at the 1995 Danube Film Festival, Best Foreign Film at the 1995 Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival, the Young Jury Award at the 1996 International Women’s Film Festival at Créteil, and the Critic’s Prize at the Cinestival 97 at Marseille.” Despite its critical acclaim, The Monkey Kid was not available for distribution until December 2010."
The review concludes: "The Monkey Kid is not a new film, but educators should not be afraid to use it in the classroom. It is especially helpful for illustrating the many ways in which Mao’s cult of personality dominated this era. It offers a view of the Cultural Revolution that is both compelling and entertaining. I have used the film with great success in both undergraduate and graduate classes on modern China. Students report that more than any other film about the Cultural Revolution, The Monkey Kid stays with them long after its showing in class because of the story line, the acting of the children, and the effective direction. The film always generates much discussion about class divisions, ideological education, and mass mobilization. I highly recommend the film for high school and college audiences."
The book notes: "A low-budget, noncommercial film ($30,000), The Monkey Kid does not have the technical refinement or the authorial complexity of In the Heat of the Sun. ... It is a precocious coming-of-age story where the local bullies are mischievous little boys peeing in Thermos bottles. ... If The Monkey Kid is perhaps a little too sweet (and the music, relying on the Chinese flute 'dizi' gives it a rather exotic, Oriental flavor), then there are other renderings by women of the Cultural Revolution with more of a bite."
The film review notes: "A neat idea gets a vigorous but incomplete workout in 'The Monkey Kid,' a loose portrait of an ankle-biter's everyday life during the depths of the Cultural Revolution that has charm to spare. Though this feather-light indie production by California-based Xiao-yen Wang, based on her own childhood in Peking, has some darker resonances for those willing to dig for them, pic represents a marketing challenge beyond cable and other broadcast outings."
The film reviewer gave the film an A-. The film review notes: "Xiao-Yen Wang's excellent, award-winning, semiautobiographical film, The Monkey Kid, is about this climate as seen through the eyes of Wang Shiwie (Fu Di), a 9-year-old girl determined to be a kid regardless of the historical changes whirling about her. Sparked by Fu Di's performance, The Monkey Kid is a simple, yet essential film about the indomitable human spirit, and a young girl's courage to be herself in spite of a dictatorship gone mad. It should not be missed."
The film review notes: "Variously tender and tough-minded, Xiao-Yen Wang's loosely autobiographical The Monkey Kid traces episodes in the life of a spirited nine-year-old girl growing up in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. Set in a 1970 Beijing of stark, slabby apartments, dingy side streets and doctrinaire schools, it celebrates independence and self-will, depicting how Chairman Mao's regimental reforms impacted on one child and her family."
The film review notes: "The Monkey Kid is an unforgettable tale of a bright, enchanting young girl who grows up during the harsh era of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. ... Filmed in Beijing from January through March, 1993, with an additional day in August to shoot in the rain, the movie is set in 1970, at a time when China's 'intellectuals' had been sent to the country to 'learn from the peasants.' ... The movie, in Mandarin with English subtitles, is a production of the Beijing-San Francisco Film Group, which produced Wang's 1991 documentary, The Blank Point, which looked at transsexualism as seen through the traditional gaze of Chinese society. The Monkey Kid, Wang's first feature film, moves at a deliciously lazy pace that may seem like anathema to the slam-bash-bang formula of American moviemaking standards."
The film review notes: "But 'The Monkey Kid' isn't just a movie about oppression. It's a tender profile of a family, and the bond between mother and daughter that transcends political and social circumstances. 'The Monkey Kid,' shot without government approval on the back streets of Beijing, screens at 7 tonight at the Ritz at the Bourse, as part of the Philadelphia Festival of World Cinema."
The article notes: "That 'The Monkey Kid' is the more modest and conventionally structured of the two in no way detracts from its impact as a moving study of a 9-year-old girl who rebels against the crushing effects of the Cultural Revolution by being a bad girl. ... Tacitly encouraged by her mother, Fu Di devises ways of sliding out from under the death grip of the Revolution that will make you want to cheer."
The article notes: "The Monkey Kid in Mandarin with English subtitles, is an autobiographical film about 9-year-old Shi-Wei and her older sister, who care for themselves while their parents, branded as intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution, are sent to work in the countryside. Xio-Yen Wang made this film in her native village and smuggled it out of China. She now lives in California and will attend Saturday's screening to answer questions."
The article notes: "The American picture, 'The Monkey Kid,' is really a Chinese film, by the Beijing Film Academy-trained Xiao-Yen Wang. Shot in Beijing without approval, it is a realistic portrayal of a child's tomfoolery during the Cultural Revolution, when her parents were sent into the countryside to be 're-educated.'"
The book has an entry about the film's director, Wang Xiao-yen. The book notes: "In 1993, without a permit, she returned to Beijing to shoot The Monkey Kid (Hou San'r, completed in 1995), based on her experiences as a mischievous nine-year-old during the Cultural Revolution while her parents had been 'sent down' for 're-education'."
The review notes: "By choosing her own path, Shi-Wei manages to escape the drab, dull rhythms of the Cultural Revolution. Comparisons to Truffaut's '400 Blows' are inevitable, but Wang acquits herself admirably with 'The Monkey Kid,' her first feature."
The review notes in French: "Chronique émue et sentimentale d'une enfance lointaine, The Monkey Kid est une petite narration, réalisée avec des moyens modestes, en tenant compte des difficultés qu'il y a, aujourd'hui en Chine, à tourner un film dans des décors réels sur une époque que l'on préfère oublier. Parce que les enfants y sont bien photographiés, sans attendrissement ni condescendance, le film dispense un certain charme, mais la légèreté de l'analyse historique (voulue ou obligée ?"
From Google Translate: "A moving and sentimental chronicle of a distant childhood, The Monkey Kid is a short narration, produced with modest means, taking into account the difficulties that there are, today in China, to shoot a film in real settings on a time that we prefer to forget. Because the children are well photographed there, without tenderness or condescension, the film dispenses a certain charm, but the lightness of the historical analysis (wanted or obliged?"
The article notes: "Xiao-Yen did submit her script for The Monkey Kid to China's film bureau and made some changes at official request, such as eliminating a Mao quotation and inserting one of his poems. However, when it became impossible to obtain official permission,, she and her husband hired children from an acting studio by contacting their parents outside the school. Xiao-Yen confessed that she was pretty scared after she finished shooting. Still, she and her husband managed to edit the film in China, then eluded airport authorities and smuggled the footage out of the country in three suitcases."
The article notes: "On the other hand, the decidedly low-budget look in The Monkey Kid makes the actors and the script work harder. Although suffering from a general flatness of tone, the film--whose central character is a ten-year-old girl, Shi Wei, growing up during the Cultural Revolution--has some poignant moments."
The article notes that the film's Chinese name is 猴三儿 and discusses the film in detail.