![]() |
The result was merge to Video games in Iran. Daniel ( talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:22, 5 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) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:35, 5 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) 01:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The song does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage so passes neither WP:NSONG nor WP:GNG. The song has not charted nationally anywhere, it has not received a major award and it has not been performed by multiple notable musicians. In fact, the artist associated with this song doesn't even appear to be notable so redirect isn't even an option nor is merge. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus due to low participation and a lack of a conclusive outcome. Not willing to soft-delete due to generic nomination statement. Per L, no prejudice against imminent renomination if desired. Daniel ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable private school. Fails WP:ORG. Essentially no coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams) is not required, but WP:GNG is the guideline to use.. (See WP:NSCHOOL) Three sources that meet GNG requirements are from Uniform Application, Newsweek, and Education World. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.I believe 3 articles clearly pass that bar:
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Baroncruft. A low-ranking officer with an unremarkable business career, no evidence of any notability. We don't have articles about French, Italian, Russian, German or Spanish people simply for having inherited the (relatively low-ranking) title of "baron" or being "sons of barons" (sic!). Tataral ( talk) 22:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure, I can confirm I am the creator of the article.
This particular article is important as it brings the Ellenborough Baronecy up to the present day and allows readers to consider the passage of the title from its origins to today with suitable ancillary biographical information provided for context. Further, aspects of the aristocracy are under review in the UK - e.g. the whether or not male primogeniture should be permitted - see [1] and being able to see who the present peers are will be of benefit to those for and against the motion.
I now address the points made above in turn:
Tataral states "a low ranking officer", "unremarkable business career" and "no evidence of notability" and also argues no Russian, German or Spanish nobility have articles "simply for having inherited the title of "baron".
Taking the last point first, no Russian, German or Spanish are entitled to be elected to the House of Lords (or their equivalents). They do not hold subsisting Royal patents and are therefore almost all symbolic. Not so, in the United Kingdom. The present Lord Ellenborough has "proved" his title to the satisfaction of the College of Arms - see [2].
The present Lord Ellenborough is also capable of standing for election to the House of Lords - see [3] [4] Vladimir.copic is incorrect on this point.
As to the comments as to the present Lord Ellenborough's career, as above, the details are included as ancillary context to the incumbent peer's position and it will be of interest to many accordingly. I note the page has been viewed 144 times since I created it.
The inclusion of this biography draws upon the information from Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage - itself one of the oldest forms of biographical dictionary in the world. It also forms part/completes the Baron Ellenborough stub.
I note Tataral is by her own omission on her Talk sometimes described as "an extreme leftist who will stop at nothing to to deny those who disagree with them political power". This being the case she is unlikely to have any interest in the British Aristocracy. Please refer to "When to not use deletion process" and specifically "some topics are of interest to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept."
I would welcome suggestions to improve the article but I feel strongly that it should not be deleted. I invite other Wikipedians to comment. Looking glass 563621 ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Tataral - my commentary on your political leanings was not a personal attack; I was quoting from your talk page! However, your analysis (and Copic’s) as to what is “notable” is profoundly subjective. As such your motive is relevant. The commentary that the article is “ yet another example of the ridiculous emphasis on fancruft on minor British aristocrats on this project” is unnecessary and a seemingly xenophobic - and further suggests political cancelling g at work. The argument is also self-defeating as you concede “ we have a thousand articles about British "sons of barons”… indicating they are still profoundly interesting. My central point is that the subject is notable and the article IS of interest to SOME, if not to you. I know this as an Englishman. The article is well-referenced from an encyclopaedia which predates Wikipedia by 100s of years. Why should it be deleted? I also note you have submitted a lot of articles for deletion. As to the commentary about no coverage of Heriditary peerage elections - that is patently false in the Uk. See for example the commentary in the National Press this month about Tony Ben’s son taking his seat in the Lords. Looking glass 563621 ( talk) 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No sign of notability as it's stated in the following guidelines WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:VERIFYOR. Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bash7oven ( talk) 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC) — Bash7oven ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable student film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable upcoming web series, does not meet WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 21:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I've researched the series on YouTube and this appears to be a low-budget video series promoted by its creator on Wikipedia. The " preview" for the series has the Vyond free trial watermark and has 2 views. This article may even qualify for speedy deletion as it is a promotional article. Also, it says that the website for the reference is The Futon Critic, and that at the cited page there is an episode listing, however it just links to the creator's Instagram account. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a dummy disambiguation page, listing all sorts of things that might considered ‘problems in Japan’, but nothing to support the idea that any of them is called the ‘Japan problem”. Mccapra ( talk) 21:16, 19 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Barely any coverage even in a Serbian search. Mentioned in passing on his club's website and Rugby Ozone but little anywhere else. Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see and no claim to meeting WP:NRU. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 19 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 20:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Futsal appearances are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL and Tuvalu are not listed as a High Performance Union so he does not meet WP:NRU. I can't actually find any sources about his rugby career at all and none are provided. All I can find are two sources, both look like blogs, that mention him as a substitute in a futsal match with no depth whatsoever: VFF foot and Futsal4all. I can't find even a smidgen of coverage towards WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 19 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) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The previous blanking seems to have been an attempt to get the article deleted. To be honest, I don't think this rugby player is notable. I added one source to basically save this from being a BLP PROD but it's from an unreliable blog and, therefore, unacceptable. WP:NRU does not mention Greece so I can only presume that they are not a High Performance Union and so his alleged caps for Greece do not make him inherently notable.
In terms of WP:GNG, I found absolutely no reliable sources on him, even when searching in Greek. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
DePROD due to playing for Denmark but Denmark is not a High Performance Union so he is not notable on that alone; see WP:NRU. He would be required to meet WP:GNG in any case and I can't see any evidence of that at all. I have run Google searches of his name and found a passing mention on the Danish association page, this simply confirms that he was in the squad for an XV game. A Danish source search only seems to come up with articles on other people of the same name. The one reference provided does prove that he exists but it doesn't show any significant coverage addressing him in depth. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 07:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus verging to weakly kept. Daniel ( talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Could not find sufficient sources that were actually reliable, secondary and in-depth enough to meet WP:BASIC, and I don't believe her governmental position was of a type of provide assumed notability. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a WP:HOAX: https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2017/06/maybe-its-time-to-take-art-jacksons.html and even if it's not, it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Also, it's notable that the author of this article shares a last name with someone on the album credits, so there may be an undisclosed COI. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Behzad Rafigh Doust. Clear consensus to not retain the article, so going redirect as part of WP:ATD. Daniel ( talk) 22:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
an advertisement of a non notable gym fails WP:GNG. GermanKity ( talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shiv Sena. Phil is correct, this must go via talk pages in future. Daniel ( talk) 22:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not intend to delete this article but this must be redirected to Shiv Sena. GermanKity ( talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Previously deleted under WP:TOOSOON by Explicit. And within few months it is live again. I still didn't see enough presence on television hence failed WP:NACTOR. GermanKity ( talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 01:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
For one, the sourcing is deeply uninspiring:
Except perhaps for the last, which has no quotable biographical material, essentially nothing here is independent; practically everything is expressly linked to the subject.
For another, nothing the subject has done really suggests notability, as defined by WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. Merely being nominated for some awards isn’t generally a signifier of notability. Neither is getting a PhD and doing routine things with that, like managing a gallery, creating an exhibit, editing a book, etc. Sure, it’s a nice career, but nothing out of the ordinary. — Biruitorul Talk 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
a well-known and significant award or honorcan support notability, which makes sense due to the WP:SECONDARY commentary provided by the honor to be nominated. The Kadinsky Prize has coverage in RS that supports its significance, e.g. BBC ("designed to be Russia's answer to the Turner Prize"), NYT ("Russia’s most prestigious contemporary-art award"), Reuters ("Russia’s top modern art award"), so even if WP:ANYBIO notability is not fully supported at this time, her being not just nominated but also shortlisted for this award appears to support her notability when combined with other sources, including the GBooks references noted by Possibly above. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:43, 22 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) 22:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 15:30, 19 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) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The overhelming majority of article content is unsourced. Article reads promotional and lacks in-depth third-party coverage. Anton.bersh ( talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Altaria (band). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Long term tagged for notability. Has a single source that is to a primary source about the band he is in. Does not demonstrate any notability as an individual. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
*Redirect to
Altaria (band) as per rationale by
User:doomsdayer520 and
User:Julle --
Kevin19781 (
talk)
18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Unsourced. A declined draft already exists. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete on verifiability grounds. It is correct that settlements of village size, including former settlements, are almost always kept even if they are unremarkable. However, that presumes that verifiability requirements are met. In this case we have not found any map that labels the village with the given name. The only source is a 1944 one that says there is a village with this name and that gives coordinates to the nearest arcminute. The given coordinates point to an apparently unsettled area of palm forest, but it has been speculated in the discussion that the village is actually the buildings located south of this. However, it would be original research to assert that those buildings make up the village that the 1944-source refers to. It is also uncertain whether the 1944 source has truly spelled the name correctly, so there is uncertainty as to whether there really is a village named "Buttock Batu". Since the main source for this page has serious reliabilty issues due to the way it has been compiled, the standards for verifiability have not been met. This is an absolute requirement, and one that has not been adequately answered by the "keep" side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. I couldn't really find any further information about this place. PepperBeast (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability"and the only current references are a list and a database. – dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
"On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. "The BGN source does this. Let's not get caught in excessive piety for words - the BGN source may have 'List' in its title, but it's actually a book length reference. While you're argument is valid, we're not forced to class it as a list for WP:GEO purposes. Also Buttock Batu is covered in other English sources such as imperial documentation. Though I'm not going to link to those as per deColonization, I'm not sure that 100% of Malaysians would find it non offensive. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:45, 5 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 12:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 13:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Candle (band). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Series doesn’t need its own page since only like two albums are actually notable. Could be merged into the artist page. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject (Oded Stark) would like his entry removed altogether. Sweterkowiec ( talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I had labeled this as PROD earlier in the week when I had just begun engaging in the deletion process, and it was deprodded yesterday without reason. As such, I am submitting this for AfD which in hindsight might have been a better option given there was more than one source on the article. Nevertheless, this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Conducting a google search reveals little information beyond what is already on the wikipage, which appears to be accurate. He was head chemist at Eli Lilly in the 1920's and participated in research in insulin. However, there were many scientists involved in its research and he does not appear to be a major player within this. I was not able to find major news coverage during his time or in historical coverage of the era. However, searching for old information is more difficult and I am less experienced on that front, and as such would appreciate others giving a go at looking into this as well.
Essentially, he does receive passing mention regarding his activities as a scientist, is published in some journal articles on the early 20th century and did have some impact, but it does not appear to be significant enough to be considered notable.
Thanks! -- Tautomers( T C) 01:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cinema Bandi. Daniel ( talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
He has only directed one movie so far. The sources are basically reviews about his movie. A source from The Hindu in the article is an interview with this person where he talks about the movie. This director fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or anything other than film database sites, videos, and other promo material found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 ( talk) 11:57, 19 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 12:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The article appears to have been largely written and maintained by two SPAs, who I assume are associated with its subject. Most of the content is a match for their website, and so a possible COPYVIO. I looked for sources to see whether it could be improved, but can find very little independent stuff online: one hit in the local press, which looks like a rehashed press release; a short review of a concert,again in the local press, with very little information about the choir; another short review by the same author, again in the local press and again with very little information; and a no-longer-available interview with the conductor of the choir on local radio (BBC Radio Oxford). Based on the sources I've been able to find, I don't think that the subject passes WP:GNG. There are some claims in the article about winning some awards at choral competitions, which if verified could arguably constitute a pass under WP:NBAND criterion 9, but I'm not confident that the competitions could fairly be described as "major music competitions", and I can't see any independent reporting of the wins. Girth Summit (blether) 11:51, 19 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) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject was a minor placegetter in MasterChef Australia 2021. She was unknown prior to this program and so WP:BIO1E likely applies. The article is largely promotional in tone, and a commentary on the dishes that she presented to the judges, which each of the 24 contestants was required to do. There will likely be arguments that the number of cites passes WP:GNG, however, that is true for most contestants on reality television. The most relevant guideline here is WP:ENTERTAINER, which the subject fails to satisfy. WWGB ( talk) 10:54, 19 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) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP that has been the subject of some apparent cross-wiki spamming. Articles on other wikis share the same weak sourcing, many are tagged and one is up for deletion. The sources don’t look like RIS to me and seem to be promotional, publishers blurbs, interviews and catalogue/vendor site entries. He is certainly prolific but I don’t see in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 07:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
pure promotional promotionalism. The awards are both promotional and trivial. The refs are PR. I decided not to draftify because there is no way of going forward with an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Apparently promotional article about defunct company. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other guideline; coverage in article is press releases of launch announcement, and WP:BEFORE shows nothing, let alone anything of WP:CORPDEPTH. There's no evidence this company was ever notable. Tagged for notability since 2012, no improvement since then; no reasonable prospects for organic improvement. (I'd have PRODed it, but it was PRODed previously.) David Gerard ( talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Careful consideration should be given to ... what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing- and this appears entirely to be that - David Gerard ( talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Comes down to a difference in opinion on whether he meets NPOL/GNG, and there is no consensus either way for that after 14 days. Daniel ( talk) 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
non-elected politician, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. GermanKity ( talk) 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles. fails WP:NORG. GermanKity ( talk) 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Do not meet WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity ( talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Lacking in details and credible sources, unless Sound Bits reviews are of any value. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
*Possible keep - More sources are needed, but artist is on
Bedrock Records which is a credible independent label.
Kevin19781 (
talk)
01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable as lacking (multiple) independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth (i.e. does not meet the GNG). I see a couple of trivial hits in Google News but that's it. The article as written also has a strong flavor of COI/autobiography to it. Izno ( talk) 07:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
*Delete fails GNG, no notable sources. --
Kevin19781 (
talk)
18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Iamfarzan ( talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 02:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. ---- Rdp060707| talk 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy-delete (G4). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable Politician. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was speedily deleted under G4. Old discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarat Singh - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, and somewhat confusingly, this article actually seems to be about a rivalry between Thailand and Vietnam on the most part. All 6 references and most of the table is about those games. Secondly, I can find no evidence whatsoever that these two countries have a strong footballing rivalry that actually warrants an article. According to 11v11, they have played against each other a lot of times but Wikipedia isn't a directory of football results; there needs to be significant coverage of the actual rivalry itself to warrant an article. Thailand v Vietnam and Indonesia v Malaysia are both well-known rivalries but Indonesia v Vietnam isn't one, please correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:21, 19 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) 10:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
HCL2 is about a human phenotype (red hair color) that was assigned a gene symbol by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee. HGNC no longer maintains symbols for phenotypes so that the symbol has been withdrawn. The article contains {{ Infobox gene}} which is not appropriate since it is no longer considered a gene. The phenotype was based on a single primary study PMID 3477350, hence is not notable. Boghog ( talk) 06:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. This consensus is on the weaker side of things (hence totally agree with the relist), so a draftify for potential improvement is definitely open as an option, however even with a further 7 days and no further contributions, happy to call this a delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Not enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Additionally, a regional qualification tournament isn't a major international competition at the highest level, thus failing WP:NSPORT. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:35, 11 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) 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic... mini essay. PepperBeast (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable subject. PepperBeast (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus ( talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus ( talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus ( talk) 00:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough to warrant its own page. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe this person meets notability, but rather would fall under notable for a single event Mpen320 ( talk) 00:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was merge to Video games in Iran. Daniel ( talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:22, 5 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) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel ( talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:35, 5 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) 01:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The song does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage so passes neither WP:NSONG nor WP:GNG. The song has not charted nationally anywhere, it has not received a major award and it has not been performed by multiple notable musicians. In fact, the artist associated with this song doesn't even appear to be notable so redirect isn't even an option nor is merge. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus due to low participation and a lack of a conclusive outcome. Not willing to soft-delete due to generic nomination statement. Per L, no prejudice against imminent renomination if desired. Daniel ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable private school. Fails WP:ORG. Essentially no coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams) is not required, but WP:GNG is the guideline to use.. (See WP:NSCHOOL) Three sources that meet GNG requirements are from Uniform Application, Newsweek, and Education World. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.I believe 3 articles clearly pass that bar:
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Baroncruft. A low-ranking officer with an unremarkable business career, no evidence of any notability. We don't have articles about French, Italian, Russian, German or Spanish people simply for having inherited the (relatively low-ranking) title of "baron" or being "sons of barons" (sic!). Tataral ( talk) 22:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure, I can confirm I am the creator of the article.
This particular article is important as it brings the Ellenborough Baronecy up to the present day and allows readers to consider the passage of the title from its origins to today with suitable ancillary biographical information provided for context. Further, aspects of the aristocracy are under review in the UK - e.g. the whether or not male primogeniture should be permitted - see [1] and being able to see who the present peers are will be of benefit to those for and against the motion.
I now address the points made above in turn:
Tataral states "a low ranking officer", "unremarkable business career" and "no evidence of notability" and also argues no Russian, German or Spanish nobility have articles "simply for having inherited the title of "baron".
Taking the last point first, no Russian, German or Spanish are entitled to be elected to the House of Lords (or their equivalents). They do not hold subsisting Royal patents and are therefore almost all symbolic. Not so, in the United Kingdom. The present Lord Ellenborough has "proved" his title to the satisfaction of the College of Arms - see [2].
The present Lord Ellenborough is also capable of standing for election to the House of Lords - see [3] [4] Vladimir.copic is incorrect on this point.
As to the comments as to the present Lord Ellenborough's career, as above, the details are included as ancillary context to the incumbent peer's position and it will be of interest to many accordingly. I note the page has been viewed 144 times since I created it.
The inclusion of this biography draws upon the information from Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage - itself one of the oldest forms of biographical dictionary in the world. It also forms part/completes the Baron Ellenborough stub.
I note Tataral is by her own omission on her Talk sometimes described as "an extreme leftist who will stop at nothing to to deny those who disagree with them political power". This being the case she is unlikely to have any interest in the British Aristocracy. Please refer to "When to not use deletion process" and specifically "some topics are of interest to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept."
I would welcome suggestions to improve the article but I feel strongly that it should not be deleted. I invite other Wikipedians to comment. Looking glass 563621 ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Tataral - my commentary on your political leanings was not a personal attack; I was quoting from your talk page! However, your analysis (and Copic’s) as to what is “notable” is profoundly subjective. As such your motive is relevant. The commentary that the article is “ yet another example of the ridiculous emphasis on fancruft on minor British aristocrats on this project” is unnecessary and a seemingly xenophobic - and further suggests political cancelling g at work. The argument is also self-defeating as you concede “ we have a thousand articles about British "sons of barons”… indicating they are still profoundly interesting. My central point is that the subject is notable and the article IS of interest to SOME, if not to you. I know this as an Englishman. The article is well-referenced from an encyclopaedia which predates Wikipedia by 100s of years. Why should it be deleted? I also note you have submitted a lot of articles for deletion. As to the commentary about no coverage of Heriditary peerage elections - that is patently false in the Uk. See for example the commentary in the National Press this month about Tony Ben’s son taking his seat in the Lords. Looking glass 563621 ( talk) 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No sign of notability as it's stated in the following guidelines WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:VERIFYOR. Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bash7oven ( talk) 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC) — Bash7oven ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable student film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable upcoming web series, does not meet WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 21:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I've researched the series on YouTube and this appears to be a low-budget video series promoted by its creator on Wikipedia. The " preview" for the series has the Vyond free trial watermark and has 2 views. This article may even qualify for speedy deletion as it is a promotional article. Also, it says that the website for the reference is The Futon Critic, and that at the cited page there is an episode listing, however it just links to the creator's Instagram account. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a dummy disambiguation page, listing all sorts of things that might considered ‘problems in Japan’, but nothing to support the idea that any of them is called the ‘Japan problem”. Mccapra ( talk) 21:16, 19 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Barely any coverage even in a Serbian search. Mentioned in passing on his club's website and Rugby Ozone but little anywhere else. Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see and no claim to meeting WP:NRU. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 19 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 20:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Futsal appearances are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL and Tuvalu are not listed as a High Performance Union so he does not meet WP:NRU. I can't actually find any sources about his rugby career at all and none are provided. All I can find are two sources, both look like blogs, that mention him as a substitute in a futsal match with no depth whatsoever: VFF foot and Futsal4all. I can't find even a smidgen of coverage towards WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 19 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) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The previous blanking seems to have been an attempt to get the article deleted. To be honest, I don't think this rugby player is notable. I added one source to basically save this from being a BLP PROD but it's from an unreliable blog and, therefore, unacceptable. WP:NRU does not mention Greece so I can only presume that they are not a High Performance Union and so his alleged caps for Greece do not make him inherently notable.
In terms of WP:GNG, I found absolutely no reliable sources on him, even when searching in Greek. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
DePROD due to playing for Denmark but Denmark is not a High Performance Union so he is not notable on that alone; see WP:NRU. He would be required to meet WP:GNG in any case and I can't see any evidence of that at all. I have run Google searches of his name and found a passing mention on the Danish association page, this simply confirms that he was in the squad for an XV game. A Danish source search only seems to come up with articles on other people of the same name. The one reference provided does prove that he exists but it doesn't show any significant coverage addressing him in depth. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 07:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM ( talk) 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus verging to weakly kept. Daniel ( talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Could not find sufficient sources that were actually reliable, secondary and in-depth enough to meet WP:BASIC, and I don't believe her governmental position was of a type of provide assumed notability. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a WP:HOAX: https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2017/06/maybe-its-time-to-take-art-jacksons.html and even if it's not, it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Also, it's notable that the author of this article shares a last name with someone on the album credits, so there may be an undisclosed COI. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Behzad Rafigh Doust. Clear consensus to not retain the article, so going redirect as part of WP:ATD. Daniel ( talk) 22:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
an advertisement of a non notable gym fails WP:GNG. GermanKity ( talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Shiv Sena. Phil is correct, this must go via talk pages in future. Daniel ( talk) 22:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not intend to delete this article but this must be redirected to Shiv Sena. GermanKity ( talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Previously deleted under WP:TOOSOON by Explicit. And within few months it is live again. I still didn't see enough presence on television hence failed WP:NACTOR. GermanKity ( talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 01:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
For one, the sourcing is deeply uninspiring:
Except perhaps for the last, which has no quotable biographical material, essentially nothing here is independent; practically everything is expressly linked to the subject.
For another, nothing the subject has done really suggests notability, as defined by WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. Merely being nominated for some awards isn’t generally a signifier of notability. Neither is getting a PhD and doing routine things with that, like managing a gallery, creating an exhibit, editing a book, etc. Sure, it’s a nice career, but nothing out of the ordinary. — Biruitorul Talk 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
a well-known and significant award or honorcan support notability, which makes sense due to the WP:SECONDARY commentary provided by the honor to be nominated. The Kadinsky Prize has coverage in RS that supports its significance, e.g. BBC ("designed to be Russia's answer to the Turner Prize"), NYT ("Russia’s most prestigious contemporary-art award"), Reuters ("Russia’s top modern art award"), so even if WP:ANYBIO notability is not fully supported at this time, her being not just nominated but also shortlisted for this award appears to support her notability when combined with other sources, including the GBooks references noted by Possibly above. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:43, 22 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) 22:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 15:30, 19 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) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The overhelming majority of article content is unsourced. Article reads promotional and lacks in-depth third-party coverage. Anton.bersh ( talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Altaria (band). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Long term tagged for notability. Has a single source that is to a primary source about the band he is in. Does not demonstrate any notability as an individual. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
*Redirect to
Altaria (band) as per rationale by
User:doomsdayer520 and
User:Julle --
Kevin19781 (
talk)
18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Unsourced. A declined draft already exists. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete on verifiability grounds. It is correct that settlements of village size, including former settlements, are almost always kept even if they are unremarkable. However, that presumes that verifiability requirements are met. In this case we have not found any map that labels the village with the given name. The only source is a 1944 one that says there is a village with this name and that gives coordinates to the nearest arcminute. The given coordinates point to an apparently unsettled area of palm forest, but it has been speculated in the discussion that the village is actually the buildings located south of this. However, it would be original research to assert that those buildings make up the village that the 1944-source refers to. It is also uncertain whether the 1944 source has truly spelled the name correctly, so there is uncertainty as to whether there really is a village named "Buttock Batu". Since the main source for this page has serious reliabilty issues due to the way it has been compiled, the standards for verifiability have not been met. This is an absolute requirement, and one that has not been adequately answered by the "keep" side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability. I couldn't really find any further information about this place. PepperBeast (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability"and the only current references are a list and a database. – dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
"On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. "The BGN source does this. Let's not get caught in excessive piety for words - the BGN source may have 'List' in its title, but it's actually a book length reference. While you're argument is valid, we're not forced to class it as a list for WP:GEO purposes. Also Buttock Batu is covered in other English sources such as imperial documentation. Though I'm not going to link to those as per deColonization, I'm not sure that 100% of Malaysians would find it non offensive. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:45, 5 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 12:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 13:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Candle (band). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Series doesn’t need its own page since only like two albums are actually notable. Could be merged into the artist page. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject (Oded Stark) would like his entry removed altogether. Sweterkowiec ( talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I had labeled this as PROD earlier in the week when I had just begun engaging in the deletion process, and it was deprodded yesterday without reason. As such, I am submitting this for AfD which in hindsight might have been a better option given there was more than one source on the article. Nevertheless, this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Conducting a google search reveals little information beyond what is already on the wikipage, which appears to be accurate. He was head chemist at Eli Lilly in the 1920's and participated in research in insulin. However, there were many scientists involved in its research and he does not appear to be a major player within this. I was not able to find major news coverage during his time or in historical coverage of the era. However, searching for old information is more difficult and I am less experienced on that front, and as such would appreciate others giving a go at looking into this as well.
Essentially, he does receive passing mention regarding his activities as a scientist, is published in some journal articles on the early 20th century and did have some impact, but it does not appear to be significant enough to be considered notable.
Thanks! -- Tautomers( T C) 01:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cinema Bandi. Daniel ( talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
He has only directed one movie so far. The sources are basically reviews about his movie. A source from The Hindu in the article is an interview with this person where he talks about the movie. This director fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or anything other than film database sites, videos, and other promo material found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 ( talk) 11:57, 19 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 12:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The article appears to have been largely written and maintained by two SPAs, who I assume are associated with its subject. Most of the content is a match for their website, and so a possible COPYVIO. I looked for sources to see whether it could be improved, but can find very little independent stuff online: one hit in the local press, which looks like a rehashed press release; a short review of a concert,again in the local press, with very little information about the choir; another short review by the same author, again in the local press and again with very little information; and a no-longer-available interview with the conductor of the choir on local radio (BBC Radio Oxford). Based on the sources I've been able to find, I don't think that the subject passes WP:GNG. There are some claims in the article about winning some awards at choral competitions, which if verified could arguably constitute a pass under WP:NBAND criterion 9, but I'm not confident that the competitions could fairly be described as "major music competitions", and I can't see any independent reporting of the wins. Girth Summit (blether) 11:51, 19 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) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject was a minor placegetter in MasterChef Australia 2021. She was unknown prior to this program and so WP:BIO1E likely applies. The article is largely promotional in tone, and a commentary on the dishes that she presented to the judges, which each of the 24 contestants was required to do. There will likely be arguments that the number of cites passes WP:GNG, however, that is true for most contestants on reality television. The most relevant guideline here is WP:ENTERTAINER, which the subject fails to satisfy. WWGB ( talk) 10:54, 19 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) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP that has been the subject of some apparent cross-wiki spamming. Articles on other wikis share the same weak sourcing, many are tagged and one is up for deletion. The sources don’t look like RIS to me and seem to be promotional, publishers blurbs, interviews and catalogue/vendor site entries. He is certainly prolific but I don’t see in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 07:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
pure promotional promotionalism. The awards are both promotional and trivial. The refs are PR. I decided not to draftify because there is no way of going forward with an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Apparently promotional article about defunct company. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other guideline; coverage in article is press releases of launch announcement, and WP:BEFORE shows nothing, let alone anything of WP:CORPDEPTH. There's no evidence this company was ever notable. Tagged for notability since 2012, no improvement since then; no reasonable prospects for organic improvement. (I'd have PRODed it, but it was PRODed previously.) David Gerard ( talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Careful consideration should be given to ... what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing- and this appears entirely to be that - David Gerard ( talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Comes down to a difference in opinion on whether he meets NPOL/GNG, and there is no consensus either way for that after 14 days. Daniel ( talk) 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
non-elected politician, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. GermanKity ( talk) 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles. fails WP:NORG. GermanKity ( talk) 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Do not meet WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity ( talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Lacking in details and credible sources, unless Sound Bits reviews are of any value. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
*Possible keep - More sources are needed, but artist is on
Bedrock Records which is a credible independent label.
Kevin19781 (
talk)
01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable as lacking (multiple) independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth (i.e. does not meet the GNG). I see a couple of trivial hits in Google News but that's it. The article as written also has a strong flavor of COI/autobiography to it. Izno ( talk) 07:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
*Delete fails GNG, no notable sources. --
Kevin19781 (
talk)
18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Iamfarzan ( talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 02:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. ---- Rdp060707| talk 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy-delete (G4). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable Politician. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was speedily deleted under G4. Old discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarat Singh - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, and somewhat confusingly, this article actually seems to be about a rivalry between Thailand and Vietnam on the most part. All 6 references and most of the table is about those games. Secondly, I can find no evidence whatsoever that these two countries have a strong footballing rivalry that actually warrants an article. According to 11v11, they have played against each other a lot of times but Wikipedia isn't a directory of football results; there needs to be significant coverage of the actual rivalry itself to warrant an article. Thailand v Vietnam and Indonesia v Malaysia are both well-known rivalries but Indonesia v Vietnam isn't one, please correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:21, 19 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) 10:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
HCL2 is about a human phenotype (red hair color) that was assigned a gene symbol by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee. HGNC no longer maintains symbols for phenotypes so that the symbol has been withdrawn. The article contains {{ Infobox gene}} which is not appropriate since it is no longer considered a gene. The phenotype was based on a single primary study PMID 3477350, hence is not notable. Boghog ( talk) 06:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. This consensus is on the weaker side of things (hence totally agree with the relist), so a draftify for potential improvement is definitely open as an option, however even with a further 7 days and no further contributions, happy to call this a delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Not enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Additionally, a regional qualification tournament isn't a major international competition at the highest level, thus failing WP:NSPORT. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:35, 11 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) 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic... mini essay. PepperBeast (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable subject. PepperBeast (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus ( talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus ( talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus ( talk) 00:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Not notable enough to warrant its own page. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe this person meets notability, but rather would fall under notable for a single event Mpen320 ( talk) 00:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)