![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable documentary film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ivar Hippe. Daniel ( talk) 02:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to the author, which was reverted without rationale or improvement. The current sourcing is about the author, and mentions the book. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:05, 10 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) 02:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORT as a qualification tournament is not the highest level of international competition. Called up to national team ahead of Olympics, but ultimately left off the final roster sent to Tokyo: https://www.fibs.it/en/news/italia-dopo-il-titolo-europeo-ecco-le-convocate-per-tokyo Either way fails WP:GNG as well. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:57, 10 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. ✗ plicit 13:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Todd's career in television news does not rise to notability under the WP:GNG. Consider checking inbound links and moving Ruth Todd (researcher) here if deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Google search for news on this person shows very little since a batch of modelling shots in 2011–2013. WP:PROD was contested in March by article's creator without a clear defence. Former citations/external links have been removed as not WP:reliable sources, [1] or as dead links. [2] – Fayenatic London 20:57, 10 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. ✗ plicit 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no independent reliable coverage of this organization, as it's not notable. It's one of countless UN programs. The page fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is already a Wikipedia article for United Nations Office for Partnerships which is the UN body which the UNFIP is part of. There's no reason UNFIP should have its own article when it can be succinctly covered in the UNOP article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus leaning a weaker keep. Would recommend that the discussion around potential redirect or merge or similar could continue on talk page if there is a desire to. Daniel ( talk) 02:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This characte doesn't meet WP:GNG: little written aout the character, though soe coverage of the actress playing the character or being involved (or not) in a given season. It's just a character arc plot summary. Few references, no references forthcoming. The character hasn't influenced other characters or become a trope or pattern in other notable fictional works, so no criteria based on influence has been met. Mikeblas ( talk) 23:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines under WP:musicbio. The only independent source is a single interview/article in a student newspaper, I can't find anything else on this musician. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 23:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The sponsor of the programs on the adjacent AfDs. based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all. (I made an attempt to fix it by removing the worst section--see page history--but I think its hopeless) DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Undeclared paid editor, now banned, which should be enough of a reason for deletion. The references without the company name in the title are mostly mentions of the company in an article about a group of other applications, as their titles make evident. The others are notes about funding or promotional interviews.
If anyone wishes to defend to, please list only the THREE best sources you can find in the group. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Largely self-promotional, not a real thing, etc. seems to have been written by the subject to whom the topic is attributed. isento ( talk) 21:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Street sting What do you mean by not a real thing, self-pomo? Are we talking about the same thing here, not a real thing of cause you have not done your homework and just attacking, how can it not be a real thing when this man owns the name Hip Hop Movement, I think he can make hip hop movement whatever he wants [1] uspto.gov -- Street sting ( talk) 07:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
•Keep User: Street stingKeep - The research on hip hop movement and its real meaning MUST be keep kept, if you all want to add to it to make it better please do but don't delete a page that has been on WIKI FOR 5 YEARS, please do this seems to be nothing more then an attack on this hip hop legend Ron "BeeoStinger" Savage by Piotr Jr. I ask that this article for deletion of hip hop movement which this man Ronald Savage OWNS. This is an attack after years of this being on wiki and in books, I believe Piotr Jr is a part of the Zulu Nation which covered up this man's alleged sexual abuse.
1) piotr Jr - went to this guy Ronald Savage wiki page first and removed the part where this hero fought for the passing of the child victims Act which everyone in the world knows this, it was covered worldwide in every online press and offline press.
2) Not one hip hop pioneer objected to Hip Hop Movement in wiki because it is giving the real facts and everyone knows that Ronald Savage trademarked Hip Hop Movement because he is the person who coined the 6 elements of the hip hop movement, it is clear that Piotr Jr. is attacking this mans legacy and does not know the true meaning or the new direction the hip hop movement has taken in this new digital era.
3) Piotr Jr -even took out from Ronald Savage wiki all the songs this man-made (smh) as being a hip hop artist, he would not have done this to any other hip hop artist, and just from this I request that his wiki has been vandalized and attacked by Piotr Jr., I submit this like to amazon as proof that Piotr jr is trying to use wiki and it's other uses to attack this man's history for his own personal vendetta when hip hop movement was APPROVED OCT3, 2016, 5 years ago and wiki will allow this man to hold a deletion on Hip Hop Movement which is respected around the world and this is the man who holds the rights to the word and means, I am shocked at wiki users to fall for this slander and attack. I submit this link as evidence as a personal attack by Piotr Jr on the legendary Ron "Bee-Stinger" Savage https://music.amazon.com/search/ron+savage?filter=IsLibrary%7Cfalse&sc=none
Why would a wiki user remove this man's songs off his wiki page unless it's personal then the same day at the top of hip hop movement on wiki it states: This article is about samples of Hip Hop Movement as the new Civil Rights Movement & Music Genre. It also states For the music genre, see Hip hop music. For other uses, see Hip hop. to show any kind of confusion between the two as new people to hip hop do all the time, For the people who said to delete I hope you see this attack and also for people who do not know their hip hop history as I do, Hip Hop Movement WAS NEVER EVER USED IN A OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND HAD NO REAL MEANING, this is why they have saluted him on bringing meaning to hip hop movement and it being on wiki which was on his Facebook page years ago. Piotr Jr is trying to keep the truth about hip hop movement from the public, I respectfully ask that you reject this deletion immediately based on the attack on this artist even taking down his songs which is on every online store around the world, even his music videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cu387y9EAg. Look what label it's on, I didn't even know this. Hip Hop Movement has been up on wiki for 5 years please do not let this man Piotr Jr at this point we don't know who he is or his personal attack on this legend. Hip Hop Movement has already passed approval 5 years ago and I request that Piotr Jr be banned from editing Ronald Savage or Hip Hop Movement -- Street sting ( talk) 22:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
pioptr Jr then took out of Ronald Savage Wikipedia page that mentioned that he was one of the childhood sexual abuse victims who fought to get the child victims act passed here in NYS, "who would do such a terrible thing like this to a survivor" then he unlinked the hip hop movement link on Ronald Savage page, this was first after he went to the Hip Hop Movement page on Wikipedia and asked for the page to be deleted, because it mentions Ronald Savage, look at the time frame, it is safe to say that this was intentional, I ask respectfully that this discussion removal be stopped on good faith on a page that has already been approved and up for 6 years, and if you like you are welcome to make changes to the page rather take a page down thats been up with no complaints at all other then Pioptr Jr whi wants it down with no legitimate reason other then his own and Ronald savage being mentioned, for god stances the man owns the rights to Hip Hop Movement whiched is registered and he turn something he coined the 6 elements of the hip hop movement, if you can see he is not taking anything away from hip hop and as you see hip hop and hip hop movement are legally two different after 2016, hip hop movement never ever had a meaning and thats a fact. You all will be doing a real misjustice to the real legal meaning of Hip Hop Movement, and i don't know wikipedia FOR covering up the truth. -Street sting the page creator of the Hip Hop Movement Page
I list this as my evidence:
curprev 21:26, 17 July 2021 Yeeno talk contribs 14,861 bytes −307 format discography undothank
curprev 21:32, 17 July 2021 Piotr Jr. talk contribs 12,770 bytes −94 →Non-profit and political work: ce for neutrality and tone, cut unverified undothank
curprev 21:07, 17 July 2021 Piotr Jr. talk contribs 9,534 bytes +417 AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Movement. undothank Street sting ( talk) 02:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)-- Street sting ( talk) 02:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 23:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Outside of minifootball.com and wmfworldcup.com, I can find barely any coverage of this event. This tournament does not seem to have any meaningful independent coverage. I found a passing mention in The Star News but hardly anything else. Recreated immediately after being sent to draft. I'm not even sure that WMF World Cup is notable as a topic as a whole either but I'll leave that to a different discussion. Coverage in its own organisation's websites and Facebook pages is not an indicator of notability as even local 5-a-side leagues have this level of coverage.
In short, no evidence that WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT are met as far as my searches are going. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 23:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Similar situation to Adriano de Oliveira Santos, where there is an ongoing AFD. No reliable sources confirm WP:NFOOTY being met and WP:GNG doesn't look to be met either. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Referendums in Germany. Daniel ( talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Copypaste of very poor sourced Germany Wikipedia translation - no vaild sources present.....seems we have a few junk copypaste of these.
Moxy-
20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST PepperBeast (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 23:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Searle has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for New Zealand. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. And yes, I have looked for sources online and found nothing that is enough for SIGCOV. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 19:10, 17 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) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Despite the colourful easy-to-search terminology, I can't find any evidence of this game existing, from a web, book and news search, and the claims about a game's history don't sound entirely serious. How many pub games have a "standardised game" or an official rulebook? The page has only ever had one source, a Lycos user page for some people who were playing it in 2005/6. This looks like a game limited to one pub in Bristol, and possibly just one group of friends in one pub in Bristol. WP:NOTMADEUP. Lord Belbury ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Technically a WP:SNOW close, but a WP:SPEEDY close might also be justifiable. Two rationales for deletion are given. One is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; even when the dislike is based on (potentially legitimate) NPOV concerns that is not a rationale for deletion. The other rationale was that it was a duplicate; the other article named was the duplicate and has been redirected here. Consensus is clear that this is a notable topic. As there are discussions elsewhere, I am closing this early. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is the exact duplicate of Sissy villain created by a mysterious Penpaper123 but has been recently edited by the same author of Sissy villain. The article is similar because it uses the same homosexual websites such as pride.com to imply the suggestion that Disney characters are queer when Disney Animation has denied such claims. Never in the history of Disney animation has there ever been an LGBTQ character unless its Onward. Painting beloved characters such as Jafar and Scar as queer is ruining the nostalgia and golden shimmer of the Disney classics. Those days the concept of queer never existed and to officially state these characters are queer is a disrespect to traditions and values. Let me repeat, what do these people use as justification: YouTube, blogspot, Disney, pride.com! violating WP:NPOV 7falcon23 ( talk) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
queer coding in disney movies
return tons of usable sources, it's a suggested completion for queer coding
, demonstrating how often the term is searched for.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it.
21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)I have never seen such blasphemy in my life. Painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual is blasphemy and a defamation against the woman who was married to a man! This is utter cursing, and I know how I feel when someone says I am LGBT. These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.
Just take a look what they have done to American animation. Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines. No longer does it mean to say that if you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, it means that you are gay because you are the same gender! What utter nonsense. Thousands of prominent authors stated they have boyfriends and girlfriends. Can we rule them as homosexuals? No, only if ultra liberal news media like NBC come to their defense and spin tales of how the rainbow is LGBT...if you see a rainbow outside...or wait if you wear a rainbow pin...Oh that must be LGBT! This is the frenzy of avarice they have against the human kind who continue to live the life nature intended.
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Paulsen has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for New Zealand. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 17:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)
Editors cannot form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Tié has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for the Ivory Coast. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 17:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was draftify to Draft:Zhanna Son. Daniel ( talk) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication that the subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:NPROF. A BEFORE does not bring up additional independent coverage in reliable sources. I may have missed sources in Russian, but WP:ONUS applies. JBchrch talk 16:32, 17 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) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this passes WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything much in the way of reference, and I think this amounts to a rather peculiar fork of DVB. PepperBeast (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a young climate activist who I think really falls under WP:BLP1E and doesn’t have the kind of sustained coverage we’re looking for. Mccapra ( talk) 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Set out to remove the shameless promotional language on this page but having looked for sources to back this wall of text up, I'm not finding enough to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall ( talk) 15:15, 17 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) 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The only evidence for the existence of this organisation is its website. It therefore fails WP:NORG AND WP:GNG. It is not listed by the Ministry of Education and Research (Estonia) at https://www.hm.ee/en/activities/higher-education. I found the article through Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles. TSventon ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Obviously this debate became a bit of a mess with all the sock votes. This came down to a difference of interpretation of MUSICBIO, and I believe a consensus exists that the article doesn't meet MUSICBIO. If anyone wants it draftified, happy to do so, although would recommend it go via AfC on its eventual way back to articlespace. Daniel ( talk) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable musician who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Xclusivzik ( talk) 00:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep -
Not an SPA. Just a fan that has been following this musician’s career for many years. I will make a concerted effort to contribute to more articles outside of this topic. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologies regarding this. Won't happen again in future articles. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
No exaggeration. Everything I’ve contributed has been taken from reliable sources. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I have removed some of the sources that link to his website and replaced them with independent sources. There are links to other works, such as the films he’s worked on which are technically about other people, but he acted as a composer on those films, so those are still valid. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn’t realize this was an issue on here. If so, I’ll be happy to change it to his last name. The reason I used his first name is that it works better than "van Wyk" when used at the start of a sentence. "van Wyk" is correctly spelt with a lower case "v", but when doing so at the start of a sentence, it doesn't look correct to me. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
These releases have been covered by notable blogs and news outlets. I’ve updated the page today with more sources showing this. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I've used at least three main-coverage, independent interviews with him as sources on this page as well as on his album pages. Reviews of his albums from creditable publications have been included as sources as well.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
:Artist is signed to
Black Hole Recordings - One of the most established and influential record labels in the Electronic Dance Music scene that has been around since the mid 90's. Artist has had seven releases with them. The label was co-founded by
Tiesto and has many notable artists on it's roster including
Paul Oakenfold and
BT.
:::*Comment - Home Normal I'd classify as independent. Black Hole is independent too, but definitely one of the biggest ("major") within the Trance music and EDM music scene.
WP:NMUSICBIO also states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." - I've posted three separate, independent, full coverage interviews with van Wyk as sources. Also, van Wyk is a film composer and composed the score for the film
Triggered released by
Samuel Goldwyn Films - A notable film studio and distributor which is part of
The Samuel Goldwyn Company.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::*
Richard3120 My mistake. I've renamed the one "Keep" to "Comment".
Socrates 2 (
talk)
20:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Per WynLib. Wynlib40 ( talk) 16:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Provide time to upgrade the record if needed. "Notability" is very seriously biased in favour of certain environments even if structured as per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO
Keep - Artist is notable and sources are correct. --
Scottlogan189 (
talk)
19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::
4meter4 The Criterion source has his name listed in the credits of the video at the end, the Taschen source has been updated to a film where his name is included in the credits on the YouTube page. I've also included an album review from Chain D.L.K. which I consider another respectable review source.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels, which the subject satisies. Also, MUSICBIO#10 says
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc., which again makes the subject notable. If you read WP:MUSICBIO carefully, you will understand my rationale has nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED and that the subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. Also, as you remarked "The film is notable, but none of the reviewers commented on van Wyk", but we don't need his music to be reviewed per under MUISICBIO#10. Chirota ( talk) 06:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::Black Hole Recordings definitely falls within the "more important indie labels" category that
WP:MUSICBIO states. It's been going since the mid 90s and has been extremely influential on the global dance music scene.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
17:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
::Comment
WP:MUSICBIO #10 is not this page's only claim though. #5 - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels - Artist passes this.
Socrates 2 (
talk) 18:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
*Keep — Per rationale by both
Chiro725 and
Socrates 2. Artist passes
WP:MUSICBIO. Point 1 states:
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
I see at least 10 sources that point to this musician's work from independent music sites. Igloo Magazine I hadn't heard of, but it does have an independent editorial board, so this would count. A Closer Listen is very well known in the experimental music scene and has been around for many years. That too has an independent editorial board, so I feel it counts. His interview with Vancouver Weekly counts. While Headphone Commute is a popular site, there isn't any mention of who actually writes and contributes to that site. Regardless though, we have many sources here, so I can accept it as part of a broader range of sources for this article. Point 5 states: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
This musician meets this criteria in two cases. One on
Black Hole Recordings, another with
Home Normal. Two important indie labels, both of which he's had more than one release with. Both labels have a long history and have many independently notable artists on their lineups. Point 10 states: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.
He has composed the score for a notable feature film. If this was the page's only claim and this was the artist's only known work, I'd agree to redirect it to the film's page, but it isn't. Musician still passes point 1 and point 5 regardless. Subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. --
Kevin19781 (
talk)
18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Another station which does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
References do not show
WP:SIGCOV and do not meet
WP:GNG.
RaziNaama (
talk) 12:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Strike sock, blocked for sockpuppetry.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This may be appropriate for placement under "speedy deletion" per WP:ONEOTHER, with the unnecessary WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being the seven-sentence stub for the 1940s–1950s "Argentinian sailor gold medallist in the Pan American Games and the Snipe World Championships" Carlos Vilar Castex whose WP:COMMONNAME is Carlos Vilar. The other (longer) entry is for a better-known Peruvian performer Carlos Alcántara Vilar whose common name is Carlos Alcántara. In the unlikely event that anyone might search for the Peruvian actor under the name "Carlos Vilar", a hatnote atop the sportsman's entry would resolve any confusion. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Only one source, titled IUB hosts 8th Bangladesh Physics Olympiad 2018, and nothing else. A quick google search found nothing. The article is unverifiable and reads like a resume. It is oddly promotional and would fit nicely into LinkedIn Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 08:24, 28 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) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject does not appear to satisfy basic notability criteria. Searching for his name on google returns several results for different people with the same name, but nothing about the author, and searching for the book series returns almost nothing (2 results for Icky Doo Dah and 4 for Mokee Joe, the latter focusing on the subject's father, Peter J. Murray). Isabelle 🔔 14:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The article is heavy on stats and results, and light on description. However, a look through the source material in the page did show the AutoSport articles give some coverage to the 2021 event. As such, there is sufficient merit to the "keep" side arguing that WP:GNG is passed, even if this is a fairly minor and junior level event. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable motorsports competition. This article was already draftified once by User:Onel5969, but then created again in article space by the originator (rather than discussing with the reviewer). The article does not speak for itself in establishing notability, and the references do not speak for it either, because one is paywalled and the other is the subject's own web site:
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Forix.autosport.com | A login screen for a paywall | Don’t know | Probably not |
2 | Ginetta | Own web site | No | Not applicable |
Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Since the debate is roughly evenly divided among "keep" and "delete" this warrants some explanation. Initially, the article was nominated based on verifiability concerns (confirmation that the sources were about the same person), but after the basic facts are in place, the question is really one of notability. The sole plausible claim to notability in the article is the position of Dean of Connor, all the other content, being a priest, the place and time of birth and death, and place of education, is registry-type information that may well belong in a biography, but that confers no notability.
The "keep" side has argued that the Dean of Connor is a sufficiently notable position that anyone who has held it is notable ("the position conveys sufficient notability"), and the fact that the article is a stub is not a reason for deletion.
However, notability, as defined in Wikipedia, has generally been about the presence and availability of source material that gives significant coverage to the subject. While very short articles ("stubs") are acceptable, it should, at least in principle, be possible to develop the article. Very few categories of articles are considered inherently notable. In this case, the source material is extremely limited, there is barely enough to establish the positions that Cuppage held and nothing about what he did while serving in those positions. As Charles Matthews mentioned, it is unclear at best if the dean position at that time was a real position of clerical authority, or a sinecure.
With the very limited sourcing, I cannot see that WP:N is met by any reasonable standard. Although WP:N is a guideline that can be interpreted or even overruled by consensus when there is good cause, I cannot see that any argument for doing so has been made here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability could be found. The first sources lists very briefly a George Cuppage who was 16 in 1715, so unclear whether this is the same person. I couldn't find Cuppage in the second source, and in the third source he gets one line. Searching online produced nothing else at all. Searching even further gave some very brief entries for a George Cuppaidge, which seems to be the same person, but even then there isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. Fram ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, these previous discussions on deletion of Wikipedia articles might help
Bashereyre ( talk) 14:19, 23 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) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Simply not notable. The only source cited here is Goodrick-Clarke, which I have taken a look at - there is no mention of "Sananel", but of "Satanel" on p. 28, who is described as "a former chief of the angelic host who later became the demiurge or creator of the material world and known as Satan", which this article copies almost verbatim. Satanel currently redirects to Satan. The article probably should just be deleted and/or merged into Satan - after all, Satanel later became known as Satan according to Goodrick-Clarke. Roniius talk to me 13:28, 10 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) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The sources are about the book that he written. Pramod Raman is failing GNG. source given doesn't have significant coverage Iamfarzan ( talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No third-party sources, notability not proven. Skyerise ( talk) 13:47, 17 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) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a singer that does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra ( talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice to a renomination in the future. Daniel ( talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Everytime a plane falls out of the sky is not a notable event. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The article's history shows a lot of persistent COI edits (or likely COI). 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 (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. After few years of unaddressed "like an ad" tags, plus the others, I think it's time to discuss the future of this. Is this a notable entity? I have serious doubts based on my BEFORE, but maybe someone can find something to salvage this (and make a few PR folks happy, since they were not able to do so, despite years of efforts...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 17 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) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. A couple of routine mentions in business news don't automatically make a person eligible for an encyclopaedia article. — kashmīrī TALK 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Article is created with a DAB to get around the creation protection at Sushil Pandey. References available in the article are brief mentions and interviews. The actor hasn't played any major roles to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Umakant Bhalerao Hey Umakant, from where have you checked that "The actor hasn't played any major roles to qualify" ?? I am feeling sad for your weak knowledge. You should try once again. The actor has played major roles in films like Article 15, Maharani, Mr. X, John Day, Jolly LLB and Jolly LLB 2.
49.14.110.152 ( talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hungry Lucy. ✗ plicit 13:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable album that fails WP:NALBUM. The songs have been released under CC, but that doesn't mean notability. Therapyisgood ( talk) 06:03, 10 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. ✗ plicit 13:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. KnightMight ( talk) 08:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
No sources in the article. I can only find references in other unreliable blogs and a trivial mention in this. It should probably be a redirect to the Center for History and New Media or David T. Beito Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 09:24, 3 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. ✗ plicit 13:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
A reality show participant without any significant coverage. Coverage is routine and fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a music producer and sound designer which I don’t think passes WP:ARTIST. Many of the sources cited don’t make any mention of the subject at all, while others are just his name in listings. The few pieces of coverage that do discuss him don’t look enough to me to demonstrate notability. There may be other sources in Telugu. Mccapra ( talk) 10:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Not my field, but does not apparently meet the criteria for American Football.No professional appearances. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 08:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a painting on a wall that got vandalised because of the result. WP:1E and WP:NNEWS fail. Plus also seems to be a WP:CFORK as all the information is already available at Marcus Rashford. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 07:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
nothing is policy driven in the delete camp, nor have they truly considered the aspect of WP:GNGis wrong. So stop belittling other editors because you don't agree with them. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 07:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was delete. czar 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The article contents does not cover the title, this is only a copy of the drivers list from the 2021 season article. SandoLorris ( talk) 04:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
no significant coverage and fails GNG Iamfarzan ( talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator Iamfarzan ( talk) 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. I see no coverage about the company, just the product; and that coverage is user-generated review sites. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
13:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 01:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No apparent notability; the article is all about who her family was, not who she was or what she did. All Google Book search hits refer to Alix of Ibelin, a queen, except one that refers to the wife of Philip of Ibelin (1180–1227). Thus it appears that there is no significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Deleting this article will enable us to move the one about the queen, who is a notable person, to this title, since she is the one who is called Alice of Ibelin, not Alix. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*Keep. (changed to redirect) English results are very scarce because she came from
Kingdom of Cyprus (1374 circa). She was essentially the queen of a major kingdom. Her other language search may have a bit more info.
VocalIndia (
talk)
22:16, 18 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. ✗ plicit 13:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sports media company does not meet WP:NMEDIA- coverage is largely puff-piece articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No pages named "Segmented file transfer" exist to disambiguate. Gjs238 ( talk) 01:18, 17 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. ✗ plicit 01:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. Wikipedia is not a software manual. PepperBeast (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Not the subject of serious independent, non-trivial coverage. There's little more than the standard all music biography, which most bands have. Most other results on google are a one line mention in an article. No charting singles/albums. No award nominations. Very little coverage. Album release on a niche indie label - not one of the major record labels. Fairly niche and obscure band - fails notability requirements. FirefoxLSD ( talk) 00:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NALBUM, Punknews.org does not appear to be a reliable source, since it accepts community based input, very similar to Wikipedia. Absent that, and the simply ubiquitous Allmusic blurb, does not meet any of the requirements. Onel5969 TT me 23:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable documentary film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ivar Hippe. Daniel ( talk) 02:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to the author, which was reverted without rationale or improvement. The current sourcing is about the author, and mentions the book. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:05, 10 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) 02:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORT as a qualification tournament is not the highest level of international competition. Called up to national team ahead of Olympics, but ultimately left off the final roster sent to Tokyo: https://www.fibs.it/en/news/italia-dopo-il-titolo-europeo-ecco-le-convocate-per-tokyo Either way fails WP:GNG as well. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:57, 10 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. ✗ plicit 13:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Todd's career in television news does not rise to notability under the WP:GNG. Consider checking inbound links and moving Ruth Todd (researcher) here if deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Google search for news on this person shows very little since a batch of modelling shots in 2011–2013. WP:PROD was contested in March by article's creator without a clear defence. Former citations/external links have been removed as not WP:reliable sources, [1] or as dead links. [2] – Fayenatic London 20:57, 10 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. ✗ plicit 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no independent reliable coverage of this organization, as it's not notable. It's one of countless UN programs. The page fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is already a Wikipedia article for United Nations Office for Partnerships which is the UN body which the UNFIP is part of. There's no reason UNFIP should have its own article when it can be succinctly covered in the UNOP article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus leaning a weaker keep. Would recommend that the discussion around potential redirect or merge or similar could continue on talk page if there is a desire to. Daniel ( talk) 02:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This characte doesn't meet WP:GNG: little written aout the character, though soe coverage of the actress playing the character or being involved (or not) in a given season. It's just a character arc plot summary. Few references, no references forthcoming. The character hasn't influenced other characters or become a trope or pattern in other notable fictional works, so no criteria based on influence has been met. Mikeblas ( talk) 23:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines under WP:musicbio. The only independent source is a single interview/article in a student newspaper, I can't find anything else on this musician. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 23:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The sponsor of the programs on the adjacent AfDs. based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all. (I made an attempt to fix it by removing the worst section--see page history--but I think its hopeless) DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Undeclared paid editor, now banned, which should be enough of a reason for deletion. The references without the company name in the title are mostly mentions of the company in an article about a group of other applications, as their titles make evident. The others are notes about funding or promotional interviews.
If anyone wishes to defend to, please list only the THREE best sources you can find in the group. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Largely self-promotional, not a real thing, etc. seems to have been written by the subject to whom the topic is attributed. isento ( talk) 21:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Street sting What do you mean by not a real thing, self-pomo? Are we talking about the same thing here, not a real thing of cause you have not done your homework and just attacking, how can it not be a real thing when this man owns the name Hip Hop Movement, I think he can make hip hop movement whatever he wants [1] uspto.gov -- Street sting ( talk) 07:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
•Keep User: Street stingKeep - The research on hip hop movement and its real meaning MUST be keep kept, if you all want to add to it to make it better please do but don't delete a page that has been on WIKI FOR 5 YEARS, please do this seems to be nothing more then an attack on this hip hop legend Ron "BeeoStinger" Savage by Piotr Jr. I ask that this article for deletion of hip hop movement which this man Ronald Savage OWNS. This is an attack after years of this being on wiki and in books, I believe Piotr Jr is a part of the Zulu Nation which covered up this man's alleged sexual abuse.
1) piotr Jr - went to this guy Ronald Savage wiki page first and removed the part where this hero fought for the passing of the child victims Act which everyone in the world knows this, it was covered worldwide in every online press and offline press.
2) Not one hip hop pioneer objected to Hip Hop Movement in wiki because it is giving the real facts and everyone knows that Ronald Savage trademarked Hip Hop Movement because he is the person who coined the 6 elements of the hip hop movement, it is clear that Piotr Jr. is attacking this mans legacy and does not know the true meaning or the new direction the hip hop movement has taken in this new digital era.
3) Piotr Jr -even took out from Ronald Savage wiki all the songs this man-made (smh) as being a hip hop artist, he would not have done this to any other hip hop artist, and just from this I request that his wiki has been vandalized and attacked by Piotr Jr., I submit this like to amazon as proof that Piotr jr is trying to use wiki and it's other uses to attack this man's history for his own personal vendetta when hip hop movement was APPROVED OCT3, 2016, 5 years ago and wiki will allow this man to hold a deletion on Hip Hop Movement which is respected around the world and this is the man who holds the rights to the word and means, I am shocked at wiki users to fall for this slander and attack. I submit this link as evidence as a personal attack by Piotr Jr on the legendary Ron "Bee-Stinger" Savage https://music.amazon.com/search/ron+savage?filter=IsLibrary%7Cfalse&sc=none
Why would a wiki user remove this man's songs off his wiki page unless it's personal then the same day at the top of hip hop movement on wiki it states: This article is about samples of Hip Hop Movement as the new Civil Rights Movement & Music Genre. It also states For the music genre, see Hip hop music. For other uses, see Hip hop. to show any kind of confusion between the two as new people to hip hop do all the time, For the people who said to delete I hope you see this attack and also for people who do not know their hip hop history as I do, Hip Hop Movement WAS NEVER EVER USED IN A OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND HAD NO REAL MEANING, this is why they have saluted him on bringing meaning to hip hop movement and it being on wiki which was on his Facebook page years ago. Piotr Jr is trying to keep the truth about hip hop movement from the public, I respectfully ask that you reject this deletion immediately based on the attack on this artist even taking down his songs which is on every online store around the world, even his music videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cu387y9EAg. Look what label it's on, I didn't even know this. Hip Hop Movement has been up on wiki for 5 years please do not let this man Piotr Jr at this point we don't know who he is or his personal attack on this legend. Hip Hop Movement has already passed approval 5 years ago and I request that Piotr Jr be banned from editing Ronald Savage or Hip Hop Movement -- Street sting ( talk) 22:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
pioptr Jr then took out of Ronald Savage Wikipedia page that mentioned that he was one of the childhood sexual abuse victims who fought to get the child victims act passed here in NYS, "who would do such a terrible thing like this to a survivor" then he unlinked the hip hop movement link on Ronald Savage page, this was first after he went to the Hip Hop Movement page on Wikipedia and asked for the page to be deleted, because it mentions Ronald Savage, look at the time frame, it is safe to say that this was intentional, I ask respectfully that this discussion removal be stopped on good faith on a page that has already been approved and up for 6 years, and if you like you are welcome to make changes to the page rather take a page down thats been up with no complaints at all other then Pioptr Jr whi wants it down with no legitimate reason other then his own and Ronald savage being mentioned, for god stances the man owns the rights to Hip Hop Movement whiched is registered and he turn something he coined the 6 elements of the hip hop movement, if you can see he is not taking anything away from hip hop and as you see hip hop and hip hop movement are legally two different after 2016, hip hop movement never ever had a meaning and thats a fact. You all will be doing a real misjustice to the real legal meaning of Hip Hop Movement, and i don't know wikipedia FOR covering up the truth. -Street sting the page creator of the Hip Hop Movement Page
I list this as my evidence:
curprev 21:26, 17 July 2021 Yeeno talk contribs 14,861 bytes −307 format discography undothank
curprev 21:32, 17 July 2021 Piotr Jr. talk contribs 12,770 bytes −94 →Non-profit and political work: ce for neutrality and tone, cut unverified undothank
curprev 21:07, 17 July 2021 Piotr Jr. talk contribs 9,534 bytes +417 AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Movement. undothank Street sting ( talk) 02:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)-- Street sting ( talk) 02:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 23:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Outside of minifootball.com and wmfworldcup.com, I can find barely any coverage of this event. This tournament does not seem to have any meaningful independent coverage. I found a passing mention in The Star News but hardly anything else. Recreated immediately after being sent to draft. I'm not even sure that WMF World Cup is notable as a topic as a whole either but I'll leave that to a different discussion. Coverage in its own organisation's websites and Facebook pages is not an indicator of notability as even local 5-a-side leagues have this level of coverage.
In short, no evidence that WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT are met as far as my searches are going. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 23:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Similar situation to Adriano de Oliveira Santos, where there is an ongoing AFD. No reliable sources confirm WP:NFOOTY being met and WP:GNG doesn't look to be met either. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Referendums in Germany. Daniel ( talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Copypaste of very poor sourced Germany Wikipedia translation - no vaild sources present.....seems we have a few junk copypaste of these.
Moxy-
20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST PepperBeast (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 23:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Searle has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for New Zealand. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. And yes, I have looked for sources online and found nothing that is enough for SIGCOV. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 19:10, 17 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) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Despite the colourful easy-to-search terminology, I can't find any evidence of this game existing, from a web, book and news search, and the claims about a game's history don't sound entirely serious. How many pub games have a "standardised game" or an official rulebook? The page has only ever had one source, a Lycos user page for some people who were playing it in 2005/6. This looks like a game limited to one pub in Bristol, and possibly just one group of friends in one pub in Bristol. WP:NOTMADEUP. Lord Belbury ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Technically a WP:SNOW close, but a WP:SPEEDY close might also be justifiable. Two rationales for deletion are given. One is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; even when the dislike is based on (potentially legitimate) NPOV concerns that is not a rationale for deletion. The other rationale was that it was a duplicate; the other article named was the duplicate and has been redirected here. Consensus is clear that this is a notable topic. As there are discussions elsewhere, I am closing this early. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is the exact duplicate of Sissy villain created by a mysterious Penpaper123 but has been recently edited by the same author of Sissy villain. The article is similar because it uses the same homosexual websites such as pride.com to imply the suggestion that Disney characters are queer when Disney Animation has denied such claims. Never in the history of Disney animation has there ever been an LGBTQ character unless its Onward. Painting beloved characters such as Jafar and Scar as queer is ruining the nostalgia and golden shimmer of the Disney classics. Those days the concept of queer never existed and to officially state these characters are queer is a disrespect to traditions and values. Let me repeat, what do these people use as justification: YouTube, blogspot, Disney, pride.com! violating WP:NPOV 7falcon23 ( talk) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
queer coding in disney movies
return tons of usable sources, it's a suggested completion for queer coding
, demonstrating how often the term is searched for.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it.
21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)I have never seen such blasphemy in my life. Painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual is blasphemy and a defamation against the woman who was married to a man! This is utter cursing, and I know how I feel when someone says I am LGBT. These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.
Just take a look what they have done to American animation. Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines. No longer does it mean to say that if you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, it means that you are gay because you are the same gender! What utter nonsense. Thousands of prominent authors stated they have boyfriends and girlfriends. Can we rule them as homosexuals? No, only if ultra liberal news media like NBC come to their defense and spin tales of how the rainbow is LGBT...if you see a rainbow outside...or wait if you wear a rainbow pin...Oh that must be LGBT! This is the frenzy of avarice they have against the human kind who continue to live the life nature intended.
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Paulsen has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for New Zealand. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 17:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)
Editors cannot form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Tié has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for the Ivory Coast. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 17:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was draftify to Draft:Zhanna Son. Daniel ( talk) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication that the subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:NPROF. A BEFORE does not bring up additional independent coverage in reliable sources. I may have missed sources in Russian, but WP:ONUS applies. JBchrch talk 16:32, 17 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) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this passes WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything much in the way of reference, and I think this amounts to a rather peculiar fork of DVB. PepperBeast (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a young climate activist who I think really falls under WP:BLP1E and doesn’t have the kind of sustained coverage we’re looking for. Mccapra ( talk) 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Set out to remove the shameless promotional language on this page but having looked for sources to back this wall of text up, I'm not finding enough to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall ( talk) 15:15, 17 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) 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The only evidence for the existence of this organisation is its website. It therefore fails WP:NORG AND WP:GNG. It is not listed by the Ministry of Education and Research (Estonia) at https://www.hm.ee/en/activities/higher-education. I found the article through Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles. TSventon ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Obviously this debate became a bit of a mess with all the sock votes. This came down to a difference of interpretation of MUSICBIO, and I believe a consensus exists that the article doesn't meet MUSICBIO. If anyone wants it draftified, happy to do so, although would recommend it go via AfC on its eventual way back to articlespace. Daniel ( talk) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable musician who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Xclusivzik ( talk) 00:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep -
Not an SPA. Just a fan that has been following this musician’s career for many years. I will make a concerted effort to contribute to more articles outside of this topic. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologies regarding this. Won't happen again in future articles. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
No exaggeration. Everything I’ve contributed has been taken from reliable sources. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I have removed some of the sources that link to his website and replaced them with independent sources. There are links to other works, such as the films he’s worked on which are technically about other people, but he acted as a composer on those films, so those are still valid. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn’t realize this was an issue on here. If so, I’ll be happy to change it to his last name. The reason I used his first name is that it works better than "van Wyk" when used at the start of a sentence. "van Wyk" is correctly spelt with a lower case "v", but when doing so at the start of a sentence, it doesn't look correct to me. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
These releases have been covered by notable blogs and news outlets. I’ve updated the page today with more sources showing this. Socrates 2 ( talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I've used at least three main-coverage, independent interviews with him as sources on this page as well as on his album pages. Reviews of his albums from creditable publications have been included as sources as well.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
:Artist is signed to
Black Hole Recordings - One of the most established and influential record labels in the Electronic Dance Music scene that has been around since the mid 90's. Artist has had seven releases with them. The label was co-founded by
Tiesto and has many notable artists on it's roster including
Paul Oakenfold and
BT.
:::*Comment - Home Normal I'd classify as independent. Black Hole is independent too, but definitely one of the biggest ("major") within the Trance music and EDM music scene.
WP:NMUSICBIO also states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." - I've posted three separate, independent, full coverage interviews with van Wyk as sources. Also, van Wyk is a film composer and composed the score for the film
Triggered released by
Samuel Goldwyn Films - A notable film studio and distributor which is part of
The Samuel Goldwyn Company.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::*
Richard3120 My mistake. I've renamed the one "Keep" to "Comment".
Socrates 2 (
talk)
20:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Per WynLib. Wynlib40 ( talk) 16:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Provide time to upgrade the record if needed. "Notability" is very seriously biased in favour of certain environments even if structured as per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO
Keep - Artist is notable and sources are correct. --
Scottlogan189 (
talk)
19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::
4meter4 The Criterion source has his name listed in the credits of the video at the end, the Taschen source has been updated to a film where his name is included in the credits on the YouTube page. I've also included an album review from Chain D.L.K. which I consider another respectable review source.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels, which the subject satisies. Also, MUSICBIO#10 says
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc., which again makes the subject notable. If you read WP:MUSICBIO carefully, you will understand my rationale has nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED and that the subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. Also, as you remarked "The film is notable, but none of the reviewers commented on van Wyk", but we don't need his music to be reviewed per under MUISICBIO#10. Chirota ( talk) 06:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::Black Hole Recordings definitely falls within the "more important indie labels" category that
WP:MUSICBIO states. It's been going since the mid 90s and has been extremely influential on the global dance music scene.
Socrates 2 (
talk)
17:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
::Comment
WP:MUSICBIO #10 is not this page's only claim though. #5 - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels - Artist passes this.
Socrates 2 (
talk) 18:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
*Keep — Per rationale by both
Chiro725 and
Socrates 2. Artist passes
WP:MUSICBIO. Point 1 states:
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
I see at least 10 sources that point to this musician's work from independent music sites. Igloo Magazine I hadn't heard of, but it does have an independent editorial board, so this would count. A Closer Listen is very well known in the experimental music scene and has been around for many years. That too has an independent editorial board, so I feel it counts. His interview with Vancouver Weekly counts. While Headphone Commute is a popular site, there isn't any mention of who actually writes and contributes to that site. Regardless though, we have many sources here, so I can accept it as part of a broader range of sources for this article. Point 5 states: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
This musician meets this criteria in two cases. One on
Black Hole Recordings, another with
Home Normal. Two important indie labels, both of which he's had more than one release with. Both labels have a long history and have many independently notable artists on their lineups. Point 10 states: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.
He has composed the score for a notable feature film. If this was the page's only claim and this was the artist's only known work, I'd agree to redirect it to the film's page, but it isn't. Musician still passes point 1 and point 5 regardless. Subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. --
Kevin19781 (
talk)
18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Another station which does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
References do not show
WP:SIGCOV and do not meet
WP:GNG.
RaziNaama (
talk) 12:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Strike sock, blocked for sockpuppetry.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This may be appropriate for placement under "speedy deletion" per WP:ONEOTHER, with the unnecessary WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being the seven-sentence stub for the 1940s–1950s "Argentinian sailor gold medallist in the Pan American Games and the Snipe World Championships" Carlos Vilar Castex whose WP:COMMONNAME is Carlos Vilar. The other (longer) entry is for a better-known Peruvian performer Carlos Alcántara Vilar whose common name is Carlos Alcántara. In the unlikely event that anyone might search for the Peruvian actor under the name "Carlos Vilar", a hatnote atop the sportsman's entry would resolve any confusion. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Only one source, titled IUB hosts 8th Bangladesh Physics Olympiad 2018, and nothing else. A quick google search found nothing. The article is unverifiable and reads like a resume. It is oddly promotional and would fit nicely into LinkedIn Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 08:24, 28 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) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject does not appear to satisfy basic notability criteria. Searching for his name on google returns several results for different people with the same name, but nothing about the author, and searching for the book series returns almost nothing (2 results for Icky Doo Dah and 4 for Mokee Joe, the latter focusing on the subject's father, Peter J. Murray). Isabelle 🔔 14:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The article is heavy on stats and results, and light on description. However, a look through the source material in the page did show the AutoSport articles give some coverage to the 2021 event. As such, there is sufficient merit to the "keep" side arguing that WP:GNG is passed, even if this is a fairly minor and junior level event. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable motorsports competition. This article was already draftified once by User:Onel5969, but then created again in article space by the originator (rather than discussing with the reviewer). The article does not speak for itself in establishing notability, and the references do not speak for it either, because one is paywalled and the other is the subject's own web site:
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Forix.autosport.com | A login screen for a paywall | Don’t know | Probably not |
2 | Ginetta | Own web site | No | Not applicable |
Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Since the debate is roughly evenly divided among "keep" and "delete" this warrants some explanation. Initially, the article was nominated based on verifiability concerns (confirmation that the sources were about the same person), but after the basic facts are in place, the question is really one of notability. The sole plausible claim to notability in the article is the position of Dean of Connor, all the other content, being a priest, the place and time of birth and death, and place of education, is registry-type information that may well belong in a biography, but that confers no notability.
The "keep" side has argued that the Dean of Connor is a sufficiently notable position that anyone who has held it is notable ("the position conveys sufficient notability"), and the fact that the article is a stub is not a reason for deletion.
However, notability, as defined in Wikipedia, has generally been about the presence and availability of source material that gives significant coverage to the subject. While very short articles ("stubs") are acceptable, it should, at least in principle, be possible to develop the article. Very few categories of articles are considered inherently notable. In this case, the source material is extremely limited, there is barely enough to establish the positions that Cuppage held and nothing about what he did while serving in those positions. As Charles Matthews mentioned, it is unclear at best if the dean position at that time was a real position of clerical authority, or a sinecure.
With the very limited sourcing, I cannot see that WP:N is met by any reasonable standard. Although WP:N is a guideline that can be interpreted or even overruled by consensus when there is good cause, I cannot see that any argument for doing so has been made here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability could be found. The first sources lists very briefly a George Cuppage who was 16 in 1715, so unclear whether this is the same person. I couldn't find Cuppage in the second source, and in the third source he gets one line. Searching online produced nothing else at all. Searching even further gave some very brief entries for a George Cuppaidge, which seems to be the same person, but even then there isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. Fram ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, these previous discussions on deletion of Wikipedia articles might help
Bashereyre ( talk) 14:19, 23 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) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Simply not notable. The only source cited here is Goodrick-Clarke, which I have taken a look at - there is no mention of "Sananel", but of "Satanel" on p. 28, who is described as "a former chief of the angelic host who later became the demiurge or creator of the material world and known as Satan", which this article copies almost verbatim. Satanel currently redirects to Satan. The article probably should just be deleted and/or merged into Satan - after all, Satanel later became known as Satan according to Goodrick-Clarke. Roniius talk to me 13:28, 10 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) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The sources are about the book that he written. Pramod Raman is failing GNG. source given doesn't have significant coverage Iamfarzan ( talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No third-party sources, notability not proven. Skyerise ( talk) 13:47, 17 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) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a singer that does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra ( talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice to a renomination in the future. Daniel ( talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Everytime a plane falls out of the sky is not a notable event. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The article's history shows a lot of persistent COI edits (or likely COI). 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 (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. After few years of unaddressed "like an ad" tags, plus the others, I think it's time to discuss the future of this. Is this a notable entity? I have serious doubts based on my BEFORE, but maybe someone can find something to salvage this (and make a few PR folks happy, since they were not able to do so, despite years of efforts...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 17 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) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. A couple of routine mentions in business news don't automatically make a person eligible for an encyclopaedia article. — kashmīrī TALK 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Article is created with a DAB to get around the creation protection at Sushil Pandey. References available in the article are brief mentions and interviews. The actor hasn't played any major roles to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Umakant Bhalerao Hey Umakant, from where have you checked that "The actor hasn't played any major roles to qualify" ?? I am feeling sad for your weak knowledge. You should try once again. The actor has played major roles in films like Article 15, Maharani, Mr. X, John Day, Jolly LLB and Jolly LLB 2.
49.14.110.152 ( talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hungry Lucy. ✗ plicit 13:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable album that fails WP:NALBUM. The songs have been released under CC, but that doesn't mean notability. Therapyisgood ( talk) 06:03, 10 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. ✗ plicit 13:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. KnightMight ( talk) 08:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
No sources in the article. I can only find references in other unreliable blogs and a trivial mention in this. It should probably be a redirect to the Center for History and New Media or David T. Beito Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 09:24, 3 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. ✗ plicit 13:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
A reality show participant without any significant coverage. Coverage is routine and fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP of a music producer and sound designer which I don’t think passes WP:ARTIST. Many of the sources cited don’t make any mention of the subject at all, while others are just his name in listings. The few pieces of coverage that do discuss him don’t look enough to me to demonstrate notability. There may be other sources in Telugu. Mccapra ( talk) 10:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Not my field, but does not apparently meet the criteria for American Football.No professional appearances. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 08:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a painting on a wall that got vandalised because of the result. WP:1E and WP:NNEWS fail. Plus also seems to be a WP:CFORK as all the information is already available at Marcus Rashford. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 07:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
nothing is policy driven in the delete camp, nor have they truly considered the aspect of WP:GNGis wrong. So stop belittling other editors because you don't agree with them. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 07:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗ plicit 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM ( talk) 06:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was delete. czar 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The article contents does not cover the title, this is only a copy of the drivers list from the 2021 season article. SandoLorris ( talk) 04:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
no significant coverage and fails GNG Iamfarzan ( talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator Iamfarzan ( talk) 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. I see no coverage about the company, just the product; and that coverage is user-generated review sites. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete.
✗
plicit
13:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 01:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No apparent notability; the article is all about who her family was, not who she was or what she did. All Google Book search hits refer to Alix of Ibelin, a queen, except one that refers to the wife of Philip of Ibelin (1180–1227). Thus it appears that there is no significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Deleting this article will enable us to move the one about the queen, who is a notable person, to this title, since she is the one who is called Alice of Ibelin, not Alix. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*Keep. (changed to redirect) English results are very scarce because she came from
Kingdom of Cyprus (1374 circa). She was essentially the queen of a major kingdom. Her other language search may have a bit more info.
VocalIndia (
talk)
22:16, 18 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. ✗ plicit 13:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sports media company does not meet WP:NMEDIA- coverage is largely puff-piece articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No pages named "Segmented file transfer" exist to disambiguate. Gjs238 ( talk) 01:18, 17 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. ✗ plicit 01:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. Wikipedia is not a software manual. PepperBeast (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Not the subject of serious independent, non-trivial coverage. There's little more than the standard all music biography, which most bands have. Most other results on google are a one line mention in an article. No charting singles/albums. No award nominations. Very little coverage. Album release on a niche indie label - not one of the major record labels. Fairly niche and obscure band - fails notability requirements. FirefoxLSD ( talk) 00:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NALBUM, Punknews.org does not appear to be a reliable source, since it accepts community based input, very similar to Wikipedia. Absent that, and the simply ubiquitous Allmusic blurb, does not meet any of the requirements. Onel5969 TT me 23:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)