![]() |
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This article concerns a bus terminal in Los Angeles. Despite being created in 2008, it currently cites no sources and BEFORE searches returned only two secondary sources ( [3], [4]) that mentioned the terminal at all and did so only in a very cursory, passing fashion.
In short, I don't think this article meets WP:GNG or any other SNG. And given the lack of secondary sources, I don't see how this article could be supported with reliable citations. These issues have also been flagged on the page since 2016, so I don't see this changing any time soon. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete or merge. Based on the substantial level of participation in the discussion, and the reasonably well-argued majority position for keeping at this time, it does not seem likely that relisting the discussion will yield any different result. There is no dispute that this is a geographic designation (even if unofficial) which is found in some reliable sources, and there is a reasonable argument that identified potential merge targets would generally only be appropriate for part of the subject, but not the entirety of it. This close is without prejudice to future proposals to merge to an appropriate target if one is identified, or to adjust the scope of the article to a more encompassing overall topic. BD2412 T 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of User:RailwayJG, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Deletion of the Heavy Woollen District for JG's reasons. My own Google searching appears to only return unreliable sources and promotional ones or otherwise don't contain significant coverage. Books does return a bit of info that appears independent though. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
And unofficial means it is not actually there. It is just a name coined so how can a non official name be given its own article? I could just call all of Hyndburn borough Accrington Stanley and it be the name of a football team but it be reverted as it is not an official name. So how does an article with no official recognition other then in a coined term get a strong standing article of its own? Seems misinforming and very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.This doesn't have legal recognition, but it's clearly been discussed by a number of reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, meaning we can have an article on it. I do agree the sourcing could be improved a bit. SportingFlyer T· C 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former woolen cloth area which was made in parts of the modern day boroughs of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England. Located around the towns of Dewsbury, Batley, Heckmondwike and Ossett."
And then If agreed. Including the change of name from district to area. I will happily ask for closure on the nomination. But if both are refused, I will continue to challenge it. RailwayJG ( talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You are going about this completely the wrong way. There's a documented thing that is addressed by numerous people over a period that is well over a century that is named a Heavy Woollen District. If there's enough reliable documentation for Wikipedia editors to write an article explaining to people, including you, who live in the area and have never heard of it, the actual history of your area and what the Heavy Woollen District was, then that's the right course of action.
It's not about what you have heard about. It's not about your personal opinion of what something should be called in your view, long after the fact. This is a documented historical thing, and that's what it was called. We want people like you, who don't know what this is, to be able to look it up in an encyclopaedia, should they encounter mention of it somewhere. If you want to write about this subject, then please do your research, and go and find things to read about it before attempting to write and arguing about what its name is.
No-one wrote or writes copiously, explicitly, with the secondary-motive of anticipating third-party usage at some point - 1, 10, 40 or 100 years later.
7:2 !votes, not counting proxy-nom Crouch, Swale as an indeterminate, presumably recused and again an indeterminate, Eopsid (non-!vote) {not pinged to obviate shouts of canvassing]. There is ample evidence that this was significant around Batley, as just one place, contrary to the experiences of the de facto nom; and these uses are ongoing. One (ownership unclear) source has comprehensive coverage but with a lot off-topic, so add {{ Unreliable source}}? Obviously (again as I wrote at Talk), there's always going potential for some degree of CIRCULAR; I first encountered blatant local plagiarism and copyvio from national in 1980; 'they' (now Bauer) were entirely unconcerned, confirming it was expected in the print trade and something they learn as apprentices, but agreed it was OTT.
How many more changes of tack will there be? So, to summarise:
it's not a District;
no defined boundaries
there's no website/legal status
the de facto nom has never heard of it despite historic sources to the contrary
it fails GNG
The sources are insufficiently-deep and/or recent/regularly-ongoing
one source is unreliable/localised
it fails geoland
Anything else to invoke?
Moving/renaming would be WP denying history. I didn't just dream-up the Encyclopædia Britannica refs; almost though, after a sleep I awoke remembering another similar article, also termed as a 'district' from 2005, changed to "area" in 2017 (the deletionists don't know about it
).--
Rocknrollmancer (
talk)
12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Pretty notable artist, but this particular compilation seems to fail WP:NALBUM. I can't find any coverage apart from the AllMusic review cited in the article, which by itself is not enough to establish notability. Did not chart and no other indication of notability. Should be redirected to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums Lennart97 ( talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable unincorporated area ( This is a testing balloon of sorts; if this is deleted I have a bunch of other unincorporated areas in Virginia to nominate as well, but I don't want to mass-nominate until I know if they would be deleted or not.) Jackattack1597 ( talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete: This list only looks like a random collection of country links that fail notability WP:LISTN and WP:LISTVERIFY. No significant coverage in published reliable sources are found. Only one of the numerous entires has a source to verify its existence. ww2censor ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I proposed the deletion of this article for the reasons of being a one-off Facebook meme that has no lasting notability.
The fictitious entity "Sunda Empire" is not a real historical kingdom nor a contemporary political movement with substantial societal followings and impact. This is shown from the excerpt from an article on the group by the Jakarta Post: [1]
The ridiculous, if amusing, claims of the self-appointed Grand Prime Minister of the Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in Bandung, West Java, and the King of the Keraton Agung Sejagat (world empire) in Purworejo, Central Java, have led them to becoming laughing stocks over the past few weeks.
The quote shows that the entity does not seem to be a serious movement and more of a "meme" that has been consumed by the public on social media for an entertainment purpose.
Its "online meme" nature is also attested by the following quotes by another article. [2]
The emergence of the so-called Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in West Java's provincial capital of Bandung, which the group claimed as the home city of the world's diplomatic corps, has caused a sensation online.
The Sunda Empire came into spotlight shortly after social media was rocked by the emergence of "Keraton Agung Sejagat" or “World Empire”, an apparently fictitious kingdom based in Purworejo regency, Central Java, which claimed itself to be the successor of the ancient Majapahit Empire.
The leader of the movement has been arrested shortly after the sensation and there has been no real development toward an actual creation of a legitimate political entity.
As such, there will be no content of the article besides their fringe claims based on no historical groundings, and the arrest of the leaders. A WP:WEBNOTE tag was placed since January and after several attempts by different authors to demonstrate the notability of the entity, it still does not exceed the length of a stub article.
For these reasons, I believe this article does not meet WP:GNG and needs to be deleted. JahlilMA ( talk) 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Election candidate for 2021_Hartlepool_by-election. WP:POLITICIAN is explicitly clear: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." All coverage is related to that making this a WP:TOOSOON case, which can be recreated if she wins. Valenciano ( talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Seems daft, only to recreate it in a few weeks, but yeah, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Jdcooper ( talk) 20:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete with the stipulation that the page can be freely re-created should she get elected. -- The Right 'Orrible ( talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election so that it can be more easily created if she gets more press coverage. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Will set a bad precedent even for by-elections. Kalamikid ( talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. It does seem harsh, as all but one of the other candidates are former MPs and have articles, but these are our rules. Farmer and local councillor plus candidate does not add up to notability. Keep the various categories for the redirect. Pam D 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election, I think it's better if the page is for the meantime directed there- if she doesn't win, no skin off our noses, if she does win, can easily be recreated. BitterGiant ( talk) 12:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. As someone above said this is not standard practice for by-elections and they should not have an article until elected MP, which probably won’t happen in Hartlepool anyway. P.S. My guess is a Labour win on a very low vote share due to a split vote with the independent ex Labour candidate taking some anti Labour votes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C189:F4D5:14B7:427A (
talk)
15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete This isn't the first time someone has jumped the gun and created a page for someone they think is the likely winner of a UK by-election, and it wont be the last. It's important we don't allow this to set a precedent. I disagree with calls for a redirect - I think its satisfactory for people searching the name to get a typical list of results, with the by-election likely being the first one. Maswimelleu ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this satisfies /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(media) FMSky ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This was nominated for speedy G4, but it has considerably more content and references than it had when deleted previously, so I think it would need another AfD. Beyond that, I have no opinion whatsoever. Whoever closes this, please do not consider my nomination as a !vote for delete or a !vote against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails the criteria either for academics or business people HighKing ++ 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No games recorded in a fully professional league on Tribuna, Mackolik, Soccerpunter or Soccerway. No assertion or evidence of passing WP:NFOOTBALL.
I could not find any significant coverage of this player and none is cited in the article so I'm concerned that he fails WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 28 March 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. North America 1000 05:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
No RS to satisfy NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Its a feature in linux that compresses files with a certain file extension. I couldn't find any non-primary sources for the software. One source is an email written by the original developer, the other is a download link.
Daiyusha ( talk) 18:48, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A college based conservation club that did some minor activities that is not notable Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A non notable tertiary institute that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS as there are no RS Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Another non notable stub that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and with no RS Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 18:24, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A non-notable stub which relies on a single primary source and no RS to support its existence. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable diploma providing institution. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 03:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. The only source in which it is covered in detail is an obviously paid piece here. My attempt to boldly redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab was reverted. There is nothing to merge, so proposing Redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab or Delete. Muhandes ( talk) 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
NOTE- I am suggesting redirect opposed to delete because deletion of article is totally absurd, i objected redirection earlier as i thought this article should exist as a standalone page. that's it!!! -- Asterisk7421 ( talk) 09:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Righeira discography per WP:PRESERVE, as there is a clear consensus that there should not be an article on this topic, but no argument that the title should not redirect to an article properly mentioning the topic. BD2412 T 19:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
While this group had several hit songs, none of their albums, including this one, appear to meet either WP:GNG, and definitely don't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The WP:VG/RS custom Google searches returned 0 sources. A standard Google search found a handful of trivial mentions but plenty of unreliable sources like forum posts, social media, YouTube, and mirrors of this article. Woodroar ( talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
non-notable actress, perhaps too soon but there is no meaningful coverage, it's all interviews and press releases (or blackhat SEO) and she hasn't held any major TV/film roles, just repeated unnamed background characters. VAXIDICAE💉 14:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Contest PROD by IP user. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN; no songs or albums in the charts at any point, no significant accolades, no significant influence within field/genre, has no entries in any reputable encyclopaedias. Fails GNG as has zero coverage outside of his own press releases. This article was protected from creation last year as a pre-emptive measure due to persistent sockpuppetry relating to Sawant in draft space. This protection was recently lifted. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:27, 28 March 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) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Had to clean up a tonne of advertising cruft. Wikipedia ain't a web host for non notable cruft. RS missing. Fails NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2013-10 NBN school of engineering no consensus
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 14:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Audio editing software. Unclear notability ( WP:GNG). Cites no third-party sources, and a Google search finds no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 28 March 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) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Had to throw out a tonne of advertising cruft. Org fails NSCHOOL. No RS found. Created by a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 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) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The page post clean up does not satisfy WP:HEY. Org does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. RS missing with a BEFORE. Relied upon primary sources, paid adverts, press releases. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
A similar article at this title was previously deleted, and this new article was tagged with WP:G4, but the source used in the new version post-dates that deletion discussion so I've declined the speedy tag and am nominating here for a new discussion. I can't find any indication that GNG or NACTOR are satisfied: I can find UGC fan-site coverage of the subject, but only passing mentions in RS. GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, [...] or other productions,including video games. It also seems relevant that so much of her filmography is linked to other Wikipedia articles - while her article is currently tagged as an orphan, I have been able to de-orphan it by bluelinking where her name already appears, and there is a lot more work to do. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC) As I review and update the linked articles, it also appears that per WP:ENT, she has
a large fan base or a significant "cult" followingbecause she has been a featured guest of a variety of conventions, i.e. in 2019: Daisho Con, Setsucon, ColossalCon, and Youmacon, as well as SacAnime in 2020. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC) And there appear to be additional conventions. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB ( talk) 12:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America 1000 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Promotional article. While it looks like there are a lot of good sources here, the primary subject of all the RS listed is Social Impact Bonds, the policy this firm is promoting. They thus all fail WP:CORPDEPTH Mottezen ( talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB ( talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Against deletion. The Institute for Bass Sciences was founded in 1996 and its research papers have been published in various journals, e.g. the International Choral Bulletin. The management of the Great Bass Choir, the instigation of writing and composing the Ode to Basses (all clearly referenced in the article!), the provenance of its members (mostly basses from world-class choirs as the APZ Tone Tomšič etc.) clearly show that the Institute is not "a hoax". Deletion would be frivolous and based on ignorance, none of which conform to Wikipedia deletion policy. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action.
Additionally, I am appaled by the attitude of certain editors attacking new contrubutors, labeling their legitimate contributions as "likely April 1st hoaxes" and deleting their sincere and corteous explanations by rude remarks such as "begone!" B15563T5 ( talk) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
DEPRODed because of allegedly several awards received, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BEFORE gave me only catalog entries of some of his books, no prove of any award received nor reviews of his works. The 2 sources are CAT Entries of his books, 1 source is unrelated. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Paying particular attention to those who assessed the topic after the page's significant expansion (all arguing for a "keep" outcome), there is a consensus that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv ( talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable single aircraft display team - most air forces have single aircraft disoplay teams and the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated every year (for at least 40 years) and of all the many single aircraft displays it is very rare to be of any note and previous teams have been deleted before for not being notable for inclusion MilborneOne ( talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated[display teams]
every year (for at least 40 years)", so it certainly seems like a worthy article to have. - wolf 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 09:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable album or have received independent coverage from any reliable source. The closing ceremony also has an article( Commonwealth Games: Melbourne 2006 Closing Ceremony). I can't seem to find any source to signify notability. Meanderingbartender ( talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
K-12 school. Two sources in the article are database reports with statistics. BEFORE showed only mill coverage (sports scores) in local papers. No SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage. Does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No district page for redirect, no objection to redirect to community page if there is consensus // Timothy :: talk 09:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article discusses the school's planned gymnasium, its football team, school debates, the school paper, and the play Miss Adventure.
The article discusses Isabella High School news such as work in the library to classify books and magazines, a sports game with Verbena, the home economics club, , and the play "Miss Adventure" the school put on.
The article discusses the renovations made to Isabella High School.
The article notes that Isabella High School is in rural Chilton County and serves 450 students from kindergarten through grade 12. A wing of the school that had been in use since at least 1936 was ravaged by a fire. 10 classrooms for kindergarten to fifth grade were damaged. An auditorium, library, science laboratory, and offices were ravaged.
The article notes, "Isabella High School christened its new all-purpose facility during a ceremony on April 22. The building will be named the Curtis V. Smith P.E. Facility in honor of the longtime Isabella resident and community leader." The article notes that Smith was a principal at Isabella High school. His tenure was 6.5 years. His wife was a 23-year first-grade teacher at the school.
The article notes that Isabella School experienced a fire that was "such a devastating blow to the community and the area". The fire ravaged ten classrooms, the science lab, the library, and the auditorium. The article notes that "the community has vowed to rebuild the school: more than 500 people attended a community meeting shortly after the fire and contributed more than $4,000 for supplies to get the school back in operation."
The article notes, "But to 200 Isabella High School students who had just watched real, live theater, the American Company was the definition of magic and happiness. Isabella High School is an old-fashioned looking wooden school in rural Chilton County, and according to one teacher, live theater is about as rare there as snow."
Since Isabella High School is a public school so is not a "commercial organization", it can satisfy either WP:ORG or WP:GNG or both which means that it does not need to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. My evaluation of the sources is that it passes WP:GNG.All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a company/organization and the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. The key requirement is sources to establish notability and I am unable to locate a single source that meets the requirements. One reference from "The Minnesota Daily" is based entirely on an interview with the "founder", is an advertorial, and fails WP:ORGIND. Notability is not inherited, for this topic to be notable there must be sources that deal directly with this topic. The previous AfD mentions WP:NMUSIC but this is not applicable for record labels. (Note: the last AfD was withdrawn by the previous nominator) HighKing ++ 12:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Therefore, how does this topic fit within Wikipedia's goal, and how do the policies support? WP:GNG designed to support Wikipedia in several ways, among them avoiding plagarism (copying from a single voice, no matter if in-depth and reliable), giving a neutral point of view (even reliable sources can have strong points of view) by combining different viewpoints. GNG's question can be summed up as "Can we build a neutrally worded article about the topic, with enough information to be more than a sub-stub (dictionary definition)?" As we have become the go-to site for information, many with goals divergent from Wikipedia's attempt (and unfortunately succeed too often) in using Wikipedia for their own purposes, often for financial gain. Therefore we constantly are bombarded with edits which purport to be encyclopedic, but whose goals are promotional in nature. NCORP was developed as a more strict guideline to further strain out truly encyclopedic topics from the flow of business "news". If so, do we apply NCORP, because as an ongoing commercial concern the content of the article promotes the offerings of the topic?
GNG is an all-purpose notability guideline, and is particularly useful because the community may not have expertise in a given area. This is where SNG are helpful, because they are usually more specific regarding how a subject may be notable within its area. Despite several attempts, mostly because of lack of participation, the community has failed to articulate a SNG for record labels, which are tricky because they are both a corporation and produce art. The closest thing we have is the fifth point of WP:NMUSIC. If a record label has produced art by several notable artists ("several" being undefined), then it stands to reason that the label has had an impact upon art and culture, within a genre or a region. It therefore stands to reason that said label is worthy of encyclopedic attention. Where the line is drawn regarding notable artists and degree of influence has varied from dicussion to discussion We also need to be wary of WP:Walled gardens regarding notable artists. In these cases I do give attention to editors such as Chubbles, who have demonstrated an expertise of musical topics over a long period of time.
My opinion on this particular topic is that it improves the encyclopedia, if only slightly. Mostly the article is neutrally worded, and it gives information of use to those who are musicologists or collectors of music. The fact that Minnesota Public Radio has singled it out for attention is important. Not all "interviews" are equal, and MPR has a much better reputation for fact-checking than your average blog. There is certainly about the label itself there. Billboard isn't the source it once was, but still not every yahoo who starts a label is featured in its pages. Calling all the articles "local interest" ignores that Minneapolis/St. Paul is one of the major metropolitan areas, and there has been persistent coverage of the label there. Put together with the number of notable bands that this label has been responsible for (and perhaps vice-versa), I believe the foregoing shows a degree of artistic presence that merits encyclopedic attention. Regarding promotion, perhaps the discography should be removed (and I say that as someone who spends a lot of time at discography), because as an ongoing commercial concern, it might appear that we are promoting its catalog. That discussion can take place at the talk page, however. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
K-12 school, Single source in article is to a government database report, BEFORE showed no SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage (mill coverage of sports scores in local paper). Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No school district article exists. No objection to a redirect to town article if there is a consensus. // Timothy :: talk 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article notes that Billingsley School had a centennial in 1998. When the school opened, the schedule was influenced by the agricultural calendar. In October 1998, the school started work on a $8.2 million campus. The school's principal, Van Smith, studied at Billinglsey, where he received a high school diploma in 1971. His father graduated in 1936 and his two sons graduated in 1995 and 1998. His mother was a Billinglsey teacher for three decades. In the early part of the twentieth century, the school kept is classroom heated through firewood provided by parents. Students had to fetch water and cut the firewood for the wood stove. The school started in 1898 as a "the first one-room school in Billingsley". The people who spearheaded the school's creation were Dr. A.J. Marlar, T.L. Patrick, W.I. Gandy, and W.W. Carter. The school was first based on a Baptist Church property. The school's next building was constructed in 1906. In Fall 1932, the school building was ravaged by a fire. The students resumed their classes that year in the Methodist Church and the Masonic Hall. The school was rebuilt during the Great Depression.
The article notes that Billingsley School had a centennial in 1998. The school is on 104,000-square-foot lot. The school spent $8.2 million to construct a new campus.
The article discusses Billingsley School. The article notes, "Billingsley School, which serves about 540 Autauga County students, is something of a rarity in modern public education. One schooll serves youngsters in kindergarten through grade 12." The article notes that the school building was built in the 1930s, two additional buildings were constructed in the 1930s, and a gym was added in 1961. The article notes that "Billingsley is a school that is showing its age and has outgrown its campus".
Since Billingsley High School is a public school so is not a "commercial organization", it can satisfy either WP:ORG or WP:GNG or both which means that it does not need to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. My evaluation of the sources is that it passes WP:GNG.All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NACTOR, and poorly sourced content. Frontman830 ( talk) 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Despite having ben relisted twice, there is no clear consensus for either "keep" or "delete". Randykitty ( talk) 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable and no reliable sources present.
Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
* Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable.
Vikram Vincent
10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Chaudhary Charan Singh University.I would suggest that you please verify the fact before voting as you are stating a non-existant point as if it were a fact. Vikram Vincent 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Vikram Vincent 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Music PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana ( talk) 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A politician who was never elected into any legislative bodies hence fails WP:NPOL. In that case, the subject must satisfy general GNG criteria. In this case also, the subject fails it as there is no significant coverage rather than some trivial and incidental coverage. These [24] [25] [26] are the only three good sources where the subject is the primary topic, where one is about the person being infected by Covid-19. The rest of the sources are about something else where he has been mentioned. I only found this [27] extra one as a better source on doing WP:Before, but still not sufficient for getting sigcov even if we combine it all. Fails to get significant coverage hence fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCREATIVE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sourcing is about a complaint they filed on another actor. Not involved in making any notable production either. Ab207 ( talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of the sources are covering about the overall Covid 19 situation in Telengana. Some other are just press releases. This [28] is the only source where the subject is the primary topic. But this is about this person getting admitted into hospital due to Covid-19 and have just 4 sentences in it. This article is just a case of WP:REFBOMB as none of the sources are giving the enough sigcov to establish notability even if we combine all the sources together. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable filmmaker. It appears that he did direct and write 2 semi-notable films, but haven't found RS about him directly. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:23, 12 March 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) 01:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this is the chief of election commission, he has recieved some coverage from press releases regarding the upcoming and past elections. All of the sources are basically just some press releases an interviews. I was not able to find any sources which gives him the in-depth coverage to have an stand alone article. Fails GNG as their is no sigcov. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2021-03 ✍️ create
The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. I have to discount the opinions assuming that nobility are automatically notable, because nothing in our guidelines says so, and it's also not our usual practice (see also WP:OUTCOMES#Monarchs and nobility). This leaves us with the question of whether her media coverage confers notability. The "delete" side has argued that the coverage is not substantial enough for WP:GNG, and these arguments have not been rebutted by the "keep" side. Sandstein 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
As it was discussed a few months ago in the deletion discussions about her siblings ( Princess Adrienne and Prince Nicolas) and cousins ( Prince Alexander and Prince Gabriel), the subject of this article does not appear to be notable either. Aside from the fact that she's a child and the article could potentially fail WP:BLP1E, the topic itself fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. First, because there's no significant coverage of her in the news, unlike some other prominent royal children such as her aunt, Crown Princess Victoria's children. Second, she was stripped off her HRH style about a year and a half ago, which means that she will 'probably' be keeping a low profile ( WP:LOWPROFILE) throughout her life and she will never be a public figure unlike her mother Princess Madeleine. The article should at best be redirected to the appropriate section on Madeleine's article, just like the ones for her siblings. Keivan.f Talk 07:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNGis also wrong. I have already provided an example from Belgium in my previous comment. Other examples would be Infanta Cristina of Spain's children or Princess Märtha Louise of Norway's children, who are also in line to the throne, yet no stand-alone article exists for them, with most of them being deleted or redirected. Keivan.f Talk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article.TompaDompa ( talk) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNGis also inaccurate as I gave about 20 examples of such children, none of whom meet our notability criteria. Clear example of WP:LOWPROFILE. Keivan.f Talk 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. Those are all in the line of succession to the Belgian throne. This was also noted in the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (
I have to discount "keep" arguments based on inherent notability, because there's no community consensus about that for nobilityand
we have always rejected inherited notability, including for nobility and the like, and unlike for politicians we have no community-accepted guidelines presuming the notability of people with inherited titles, respectively). TompaDompa ( talk) 13:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable, which is evidently not true. Keivan.f Talk 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Off topic discussions ( WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. As an example, SergeWoodzing voted keep in the previous discussion on this page yet I decided to ask for his insight; and he decided on his own to vote ‘delete’ this time. I didn’t ask him to vote in a particular way. Also I didn’t invite Surtsicna, Phil Bridger, TompaDomp or Pontificalibus to this discussion either, not to mention that I asked for a few people’s ‘insights’ on their talk pages, not their ‘votes’. So next time get your facts straight before making a fuss. Keivan.f Talk 05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed.If you feel there might be other experienced editors who might help with getting a consensus please don’t hesitate and inform them as well. Keivan.f Talk 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Off topic ( WP:NOTFORUM) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP of an artist that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra ( talk) 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Promo piece with likely COI editing on a non-notable company. The sources are plentiful, but most are directory listings and press release regurgitations, others 50-year-old offline ones that can't easily be verified, hence the bottom line is that even if all the promo fluff were removed, there's not much of substance left. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP.
This was declined at AfC twice, but moved to main space anyway, so let's see what the community says. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I also tried the Internet Archive search which has in the past shown to contain some trade magazine reviews for some pinballs, but I got no hits for this one." The prod was removed with no meaningful rationale, the article was not improved, months have passed... AfD time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Niche browser game, very poorly referenced (mentions in passing/unreliable websites). No indication of reception/reviews/significance. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (video games) and WP:GNG in general. Previous AfD from 2008 ended as 'no consensus', which is telling given how inclusionist we were back then... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Daniel ( talk) 01:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Nothing found on doing a WP:BEFORE. One source in the article is the college website and other one is something like a directory. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Links are not secondary sources. Insufficient notability given, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES applies. So, delete. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No independent relibale sources to establish notability and nothing was found on doing WP:Before. Clearly fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable organization and web site that has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination). I haven't seen the deleted article, so am not tagging G5, but probable G5. Also close to A7. Naïve Google search finds two pages of hits on the organization's own web presence, which shows that it exists, then finds a reference to it in Reddit. Duh. No mention of anything since 2015, when the AFD was closed. One of the references is their own web site, and the second one says nothing about them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org- not about libcom, also very weak WP:NWEB (trivial: no analysis of content in general,
reviewing 163 posts- a footnote that summarizes the content of a thread about music ).
Zones of Proletarian Development- libcom is mentioned in passing as a publisher, no substantial info. Lembit Staan ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
frustrating website to find suitable sources-- yep; see my comment above. Everybody uses, but nobody cares. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a translator station that isn't even in operation anymore. The only sources are fcc filings, giving it zero notability. Rusf10 ( talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*Keep: As this station was sold to Regal Media and wasn't owned by TBN at the time it signed off, redirection to the
List of TBN Affiliates would be incorrect. Declaring this "just another TBN translator" shows that folks, with all due respect to my fellow editor above, haven't even looked at the article. To
Rusf10, the article has 4 references on it. FCC filings are references from a highly notable source, we need to stop acting like they aren't. Presumed notability is indeed extended. An FCC license has been enough for many, many years over at WPRS and had been enough at TVS. Again, with all due respect to
Wcquidditch, I respectfully disagree. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 06:55 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
:::Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! YOU still have missed the point, it wasn't a TBN translator because it wasn't owned by TBN. It was owned by Regal Media. Can't redirect it to List of TBN affiliates when it wasn't owned by TBN or broadcasting TBN programming, now can we? Also, exactly where does it say that a US federal government source isn't "highly notable"? Federal Government sources (ie: anything .gov, anything .mil) is considered HIGHLY reliable under RS. Always has. Not sure where you've been. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 07:51 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
:*I actually would be OK with this. :) -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 20:32 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Neologism that fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEOLOGISM. This term lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, as required by GNG. Many of the sources in the article merely use the word, rather than discuss it (text justifying a term's notability by giving scattered examples of it being used is always a red flag in my view). Google Scholar (linked above) shows it has almost no usage (hence no notability) in the scholarly literature that we prefer per WP:SOURCETYPES (and many of the results for it are for an unrelated all-caps portmanteau of endocrinology and sexology). Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Tweaked. Crossroads -talk- 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Sri Lanka Police Sports Club (cricket). Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 04:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer). If anything reliably sourced is worth merging, that is available from the history. As for the title of the target article, that can be discussed and decided on its talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails
WP:GNG.
Störm
(talk)
01:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Neither entry is for a "Midfield Airport". The first refers to Midfield Terminal, since renamed. The second is a "midfield airport", not a formal title, just a description. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This article concerns a bus terminal in Los Angeles. Despite being created in 2008, it currently cites no sources and BEFORE searches returned only two secondary sources ( [3], [4]) that mentioned the terminal at all and did so only in a very cursory, passing fashion.
In short, I don't think this article meets WP:GNG or any other SNG. And given the lack of secondary sources, I don't see how this article could be supported with reliable citations. These issues have also been flagged on the page since 2016, so I don't see this changing any time soon. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete or merge. Based on the substantial level of participation in the discussion, and the reasonably well-argued majority position for keeping at this time, it does not seem likely that relisting the discussion will yield any different result. There is no dispute that this is a geographic designation (even if unofficial) which is found in some reliable sources, and there is a reasonable argument that identified potential merge targets would generally only be appropriate for part of the subject, but not the entirety of it. This close is without prejudice to future proposals to merge to an appropriate target if one is identified, or to adjust the scope of the article to a more encompassing overall topic. BD2412 T 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of User:RailwayJG, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Deletion of the Heavy Woollen District for JG's reasons. My own Google searching appears to only return unreliable sources and promotional ones or otherwise don't contain significant coverage. Books does return a bit of info that appears independent though. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
And unofficial means it is not actually there. It is just a name coined so how can a non official name be given its own article? I could just call all of Hyndburn borough Accrington Stanley and it be the name of a football team but it be reverted as it is not an official name. So how does an article with no official recognition other then in a coined term get a strong standing article of its own? Seems misinforming and very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.This doesn't have legal recognition, but it's clearly been discussed by a number of reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, meaning we can have an article on it. I do agree the sourcing could be improved a bit. SportingFlyer T· C 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former woolen cloth area which was made in parts of the modern day boroughs of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England. Located around the towns of Dewsbury, Batley, Heckmondwike and Ossett."
And then If agreed. Including the change of name from district to area. I will happily ask for closure on the nomination. But if both are refused, I will continue to challenge it. RailwayJG ( talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You are going about this completely the wrong way. There's a documented thing that is addressed by numerous people over a period that is well over a century that is named a Heavy Woollen District. If there's enough reliable documentation for Wikipedia editors to write an article explaining to people, including you, who live in the area and have never heard of it, the actual history of your area and what the Heavy Woollen District was, then that's the right course of action.
It's not about what you have heard about. It's not about your personal opinion of what something should be called in your view, long after the fact. This is a documented historical thing, and that's what it was called. We want people like you, who don't know what this is, to be able to look it up in an encyclopaedia, should they encounter mention of it somewhere. If you want to write about this subject, then please do your research, and go and find things to read about it before attempting to write and arguing about what its name is.
No-one wrote or writes copiously, explicitly, with the secondary-motive of anticipating third-party usage at some point - 1, 10, 40 or 100 years later.
7:2 !votes, not counting proxy-nom Crouch, Swale as an indeterminate, presumably recused and again an indeterminate, Eopsid (non-!vote) {not pinged to obviate shouts of canvassing]. There is ample evidence that this was significant around Batley, as just one place, contrary to the experiences of the de facto nom; and these uses are ongoing. One (ownership unclear) source has comprehensive coverage but with a lot off-topic, so add {{ Unreliable source}}? Obviously (again as I wrote at Talk), there's always going potential for some degree of CIRCULAR; I first encountered blatant local plagiarism and copyvio from national in 1980; 'they' (now Bauer) were entirely unconcerned, confirming it was expected in the print trade and something they learn as apprentices, but agreed it was OTT.
How many more changes of tack will there be? So, to summarise:
it's not a District;
no defined boundaries
there's no website/legal status
the de facto nom has never heard of it despite historic sources to the contrary
it fails GNG
The sources are insufficiently-deep and/or recent/regularly-ongoing
one source is unreliable/localised
it fails geoland
Anything else to invoke?
Moving/renaming would be WP denying history. I didn't just dream-up the Encyclopædia Britannica refs; almost though, after a sleep I awoke remembering another similar article, also termed as a 'district' from 2005, changed to "area" in 2017 (the deletionists don't know about it
).--
Rocknrollmancer (
talk)
12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Pretty notable artist, but this particular compilation seems to fail WP:NALBUM. I can't find any coverage apart from the AllMusic review cited in the article, which by itself is not enough to establish notability. Did not chart and no other indication of notability. Should be redirected to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums Lennart97 ( talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable unincorporated area ( This is a testing balloon of sorts; if this is deleted I have a bunch of other unincorporated areas in Virginia to nominate as well, but I don't want to mass-nominate until I know if they would be deleted or not.) Jackattack1597 ( talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete: This list only looks like a random collection of country links that fail notability WP:LISTN and WP:LISTVERIFY. No significant coverage in published reliable sources are found. Only one of the numerous entires has a source to verify its existence. ww2censor ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I proposed the deletion of this article for the reasons of being a one-off Facebook meme that has no lasting notability.
The fictitious entity "Sunda Empire" is not a real historical kingdom nor a contemporary political movement with substantial societal followings and impact. This is shown from the excerpt from an article on the group by the Jakarta Post: [1]
The ridiculous, if amusing, claims of the self-appointed Grand Prime Minister of the Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in Bandung, West Java, and the King of the Keraton Agung Sejagat (world empire) in Purworejo, Central Java, have led them to becoming laughing stocks over the past few weeks.
The quote shows that the entity does not seem to be a serious movement and more of a "meme" that has been consumed by the public on social media for an entertainment purpose.
Its "online meme" nature is also attested by the following quotes by another article. [2]
The emergence of the so-called Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in West Java's provincial capital of Bandung, which the group claimed as the home city of the world's diplomatic corps, has caused a sensation online.
The Sunda Empire came into spotlight shortly after social media was rocked by the emergence of "Keraton Agung Sejagat" or “World Empire”, an apparently fictitious kingdom based in Purworejo regency, Central Java, which claimed itself to be the successor of the ancient Majapahit Empire.
The leader of the movement has been arrested shortly after the sensation and there has been no real development toward an actual creation of a legitimate political entity.
As such, there will be no content of the article besides their fringe claims based on no historical groundings, and the arrest of the leaders. A WP:WEBNOTE tag was placed since January and after several attempts by different authors to demonstrate the notability of the entity, it still does not exceed the length of a stub article.
For these reasons, I believe this article does not meet WP:GNG and needs to be deleted. JahlilMA ( talk) 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Election candidate for 2021_Hartlepool_by-election. WP:POLITICIAN is explicitly clear: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." All coverage is related to that making this a WP:TOOSOON case, which can be recreated if she wins. Valenciano ( talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Seems daft, only to recreate it in a few weeks, but yeah, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Jdcooper ( talk) 20:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete with the stipulation that the page can be freely re-created should she get elected. -- The Right 'Orrible ( talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election so that it can be more easily created if she gets more press coverage. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Will set a bad precedent even for by-elections. Kalamikid ( talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. It does seem harsh, as all but one of the other candidates are former MPs and have articles, but these are our rules. Farmer and local councillor plus candidate does not add up to notability. Keep the various categories for the redirect. Pam D 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election, I think it's better if the page is for the meantime directed there- if she doesn't win, no skin off our noses, if she does win, can easily be recreated. BitterGiant ( talk) 12:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. As someone above said this is not standard practice for by-elections and they should not have an article until elected MP, which probably won’t happen in Hartlepool anyway. P.S. My guess is a Labour win on a very low vote share due to a split vote with the independent ex Labour candidate taking some anti Labour votes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C189:F4D5:14B7:427A (
talk)
15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete This isn't the first time someone has jumped the gun and created a page for someone they think is the likely winner of a UK by-election, and it wont be the last. It's important we don't allow this to set a precedent. I disagree with calls for a redirect - I think its satisfactory for people searching the name to get a typical list of results, with the by-election likely being the first one. Maswimelleu ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this satisfies /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(media) FMSky ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This was nominated for speedy G4, but it has considerably more content and references than it had when deleted previously, so I think it would need another AfD. Beyond that, I have no opinion whatsoever. Whoever closes this, please do not consider my nomination as a !vote for delete or a !vote against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails the criteria either for academics or business people HighKing ++ 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No games recorded in a fully professional league on Tribuna, Mackolik, Soccerpunter or Soccerway. No assertion or evidence of passing WP:NFOOTBALL.
I could not find any significant coverage of this player and none is cited in the article so I'm concerned that he fails WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 28 March 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. North America 1000 05:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
No RS to satisfy NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Its a feature in linux that compresses files with a certain file extension. I couldn't find any non-primary sources for the software. One source is an email written by the original developer, the other is a download link.
Daiyusha ( talk) 18:48, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A college based conservation club that did some minor activities that is not notable Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A non notable tertiary institute that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS as there are no RS Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Another non notable stub that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and with no RS Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 18:24, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A non-notable stub which relies on a single primary source and no RS to support its existence. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 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. North America 1000 06:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable diploma providing institution. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Dr Salvus 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 03:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. The only source in which it is covered in detail is an obviously paid piece here. My attempt to boldly redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab was reverted. There is nothing to merge, so proposing Redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab or Delete. Muhandes ( talk) 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
NOTE- I am suggesting redirect opposed to delete because deletion of article is totally absurd, i objected redirection earlier as i thought this article should exist as a standalone page. that's it!!! -- Asterisk7421 ( talk) 09:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Righeira discography per WP:PRESERVE, as there is a clear consensus that there should not be an article on this topic, but no argument that the title should not redirect to an article properly mentioning the topic. BD2412 T 19:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
While this group had several hit songs, none of their albums, including this one, appear to meet either WP:GNG, and definitely don't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The WP:VG/RS custom Google searches returned 0 sources. A standard Google search found a handful of trivial mentions but plenty of unreliable sources like forum posts, social media, YouTube, and mirrors of this article. Woodroar ( talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
non-notable actress, perhaps too soon but there is no meaningful coverage, it's all interviews and press releases (or blackhat SEO) and she hasn't held any major TV/film roles, just repeated unnamed background characters. VAXIDICAE💉 14:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Contest PROD by IP user. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN; no songs or albums in the charts at any point, no significant accolades, no significant influence within field/genre, has no entries in any reputable encyclopaedias. Fails GNG as has zero coverage outside of his own press releases. This article was protected from creation last year as a pre-emptive measure due to persistent sockpuppetry relating to Sawant in draft space. This protection was recently lifted. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:27, 28 March 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) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Had to clean up a tonne of advertising cruft. Wikipedia ain't a web host for non notable cruft. RS missing. Fails NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2013-10 NBN school of engineering no consensus
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 14:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Audio editing software. Unclear notability ( WP:GNG). Cites no third-party sources, and a Google search finds no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 28 March 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) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Had to throw out a tonne of advertising cruft. Org fails NSCHOOL. No RS found. Created by a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 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) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The page post clean up does not satisfy WP:HEY. Org does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. RS missing with a BEFORE. Relied upon primary sources, paid adverts, press releases. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
A similar article at this title was previously deleted, and this new article was tagged with WP:G4, but the source used in the new version post-dates that deletion discussion so I've declined the speedy tag and am nominating here for a new discussion. I can't find any indication that GNG or NACTOR are satisfied: I can find UGC fan-site coverage of the subject, but only passing mentions in RS. GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, [...] or other productions,including video games. It also seems relevant that so much of her filmography is linked to other Wikipedia articles - while her article is currently tagged as an orphan, I have been able to de-orphan it by bluelinking where her name already appears, and there is a lot more work to do. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC) As I review and update the linked articles, it also appears that per WP:ENT, she has
a large fan base or a significant "cult" followingbecause she has been a featured guest of a variety of conventions, i.e. in 2019: Daisho Con, Setsucon, ColossalCon, and Youmacon, as well as SacAnime in 2020. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC) And there appear to be additional conventions. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB ( talk) 12:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America 1000 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Promotional article. While it looks like there are a lot of good sources here, the primary subject of all the RS listed is Social Impact Bonds, the policy this firm is promoting. They thus all fail WP:CORPDEPTH Mottezen ( talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB ( talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Against deletion. The Institute for Bass Sciences was founded in 1996 and its research papers have been published in various journals, e.g. the International Choral Bulletin. The management of the Great Bass Choir, the instigation of writing and composing the Ode to Basses (all clearly referenced in the article!), the provenance of its members (mostly basses from world-class choirs as the APZ Tone Tomšič etc.) clearly show that the Institute is not "a hoax". Deletion would be frivolous and based on ignorance, none of which conform to Wikipedia deletion policy. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action.
Additionally, I am appaled by the attitude of certain editors attacking new contrubutors, labeling their legitimate contributions as "likely April 1st hoaxes" and deleting their sincere and corteous explanations by rude remarks such as "begone!" B15563T5 ( talk) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
DEPRODed because of allegedly several awards received, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BEFORE gave me only catalog entries of some of his books, no prove of any award received nor reviews of his works. The 2 sources are CAT Entries of his books, 1 source is unrelated. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Paying particular attention to those who assessed the topic after the page's significant expansion (all arguing for a "keep" outcome), there is a consensus that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv ( talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non notable single aircraft display team - most air forces have single aircraft disoplay teams and the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated every year (for at least 40 years) and of all the many single aircraft displays it is very rare to be of any note and previous teams have been deleted before for not being notable for inclusion MilborneOne ( talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated[display teams]
every year (for at least 40 years)", so it certainly seems like a worthy article to have. - wolf 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 09:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable album or have received independent coverage from any reliable source. The closing ceremony also has an article( Commonwealth Games: Melbourne 2006 Closing Ceremony). I can't seem to find any source to signify notability. Meanderingbartender ( talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
K-12 school. Two sources in the article are database reports with statistics. BEFORE showed only mill coverage (sports scores) in local papers. No SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage. Does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No district page for redirect, no objection to redirect to community page if there is consensus // Timothy :: talk 09:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article discusses the school's planned gymnasium, its football team, school debates, the school paper, and the play Miss Adventure.
The article discusses Isabella High School news such as work in the library to classify books and magazines, a sports game with Verbena, the home economics club, , and the play "Miss Adventure" the school put on.
The article discusses the renovations made to Isabella High School.
The article notes that Isabella High School is in rural Chilton County and serves 450 students from kindergarten through grade 12. A wing of the school that had been in use since at least 1936 was ravaged by a fire. 10 classrooms for kindergarten to fifth grade were damaged. An auditorium, library, science laboratory, and offices were ravaged.
The article notes, "Isabella High School christened its new all-purpose facility during a ceremony on April 22. The building will be named the Curtis V. Smith P.E. Facility in honor of the longtime Isabella resident and community leader." The article notes that Smith was a principal at Isabella High school. His tenure was 6.5 years. His wife was a 23-year first-grade teacher at the school.
The article notes that Isabella School experienced a fire that was "such a devastating blow to the community and the area". The fire ravaged ten classrooms, the science lab, the library, and the auditorium. The article notes that "the community has vowed to rebuild the school: more than 500 people attended a community meeting shortly after the fire and contributed more than $4,000 for supplies to get the school back in operation."
The article notes, "But to 200 Isabella High School students who had just watched real, live theater, the American Company was the definition of magic and happiness. Isabella High School is an old-fashioned looking wooden school in rural Chilton County, and according to one teacher, live theater is about as rare there as snow."
Since Isabella High School is a public school so is not a "commercial organization", it can satisfy either WP:ORG or WP:GNG or both which means that it does not need to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. My evaluation of the sources is that it passes WP:GNG.All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a company/organization and the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. The key requirement is sources to establish notability and I am unable to locate a single source that meets the requirements. One reference from "The Minnesota Daily" is based entirely on an interview with the "founder", is an advertorial, and fails WP:ORGIND. Notability is not inherited, for this topic to be notable there must be sources that deal directly with this topic. The previous AfD mentions WP:NMUSIC but this is not applicable for record labels. (Note: the last AfD was withdrawn by the previous nominator) HighKing ++ 12:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Therefore, how does this topic fit within Wikipedia's goal, and how do the policies support? WP:GNG designed to support Wikipedia in several ways, among them avoiding plagarism (copying from a single voice, no matter if in-depth and reliable), giving a neutral point of view (even reliable sources can have strong points of view) by combining different viewpoints. GNG's question can be summed up as "Can we build a neutrally worded article about the topic, with enough information to be more than a sub-stub (dictionary definition)?" As we have become the go-to site for information, many with goals divergent from Wikipedia's attempt (and unfortunately succeed too often) in using Wikipedia for their own purposes, often for financial gain. Therefore we constantly are bombarded with edits which purport to be encyclopedic, but whose goals are promotional in nature. NCORP was developed as a more strict guideline to further strain out truly encyclopedic topics from the flow of business "news". If so, do we apply NCORP, because as an ongoing commercial concern the content of the article promotes the offerings of the topic?
GNG is an all-purpose notability guideline, and is particularly useful because the community may not have expertise in a given area. This is where SNG are helpful, because they are usually more specific regarding how a subject may be notable within its area. Despite several attempts, mostly because of lack of participation, the community has failed to articulate a SNG for record labels, which are tricky because they are both a corporation and produce art. The closest thing we have is the fifth point of WP:NMUSIC. If a record label has produced art by several notable artists ("several" being undefined), then it stands to reason that the label has had an impact upon art and culture, within a genre or a region. It therefore stands to reason that said label is worthy of encyclopedic attention. Where the line is drawn regarding notable artists and degree of influence has varied from dicussion to discussion We also need to be wary of WP:Walled gardens regarding notable artists. In these cases I do give attention to editors such as Chubbles, who have demonstrated an expertise of musical topics over a long period of time.
My opinion on this particular topic is that it improves the encyclopedia, if only slightly. Mostly the article is neutrally worded, and it gives information of use to those who are musicologists or collectors of music. The fact that Minnesota Public Radio has singled it out for attention is important. Not all "interviews" are equal, and MPR has a much better reputation for fact-checking than your average blog. There is certainly about the label itself there. Billboard isn't the source it once was, but still not every yahoo who starts a label is featured in its pages. Calling all the articles "local interest" ignores that Minneapolis/St. Paul is one of the major metropolitan areas, and there has been persistent coverage of the label there. Put together with the number of notable bands that this label has been responsible for (and perhaps vice-versa), I believe the foregoing shows a degree of artistic presence that merits encyclopedic attention. Regarding promotion, perhaps the discography should be removed (and I say that as someone who spends a lot of time at discography), because as an ongoing commercial concern, it might appear that we are promoting its catalog. That discussion can take place at the talk page, however. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
K-12 school, Single source in article is to a government database report, BEFORE showed no SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage (mill coverage of sports scores in local paper). Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No school district article exists. No objection to a redirect to town article if there is a consensus. // Timothy :: talk 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article notes that Billingsley School had a centennial in 1998. When the school opened, the schedule was influenced by the agricultural calendar. In October 1998, the school started work on a $8.2 million campus. The school's principal, Van Smith, studied at Billinglsey, where he received a high school diploma in 1971. His father graduated in 1936 and his two sons graduated in 1995 and 1998. His mother was a Billinglsey teacher for three decades. In the early part of the twentieth century, the school kept is classroom heated through firewood provided by parents. Students had to fetch water and cut the firewood for the wood stove. The school started in 1898 as a "the first one-room school in Billingsley". The people who spearheaded the school's creation were Dr. A.J. Marlar, T.L. Patrick, W.I. Gandy, and W.W. Carter. The school was first based on a Baptist Church property. The school's next building was constructed in 1906. In Fall 1932, the school building was ravaged by a fire. The students resumed their classes that year in the Methodist Church and the Masonic Hall. The school was rebuilt during the Great Depression.
The article notes that Billingsley School had a centennial in 1998. The school is on 104,000-square-foot lot. The school spent $8.2 million to construct a new campus.
The article discusses Billingsley School. The article notes, "Billingsley School, which serves about 540 Autauga County students, is something of a rarity in modern public education. One schooll serves youngsters in kindergarten through grade 12." The article notes that the school building was built in the 1930s, two additional buildings were constructed in the 1930s, and a gym was added in 1961. The article notes that "Billingsley is a school that is showing its age and has outgrown its campus".
Since Billingsley High School is a public school so is not a "commercial organization", it can satisfy either WP:ORG or WP:GNG or both which means that it does not need to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. My evaluation of the sources is that it passes WP:GNG.All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NACTOR, and poorly sourced content. Frontman830 ( talk) 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Despite having ben relisted twice, there is no clear consensus for either "keep" or "delete". Randykitty ( talk) 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not notable and no reliable sources present.
Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
* Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable.
Vikram Vincent
10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Chaudhary Charan Singh University.I would suggest that you please verify the fact before voting as you are stating a non-existant point as if it were a fact. Vikram Vincent 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Vikram Vincent 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Music PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana ( talk) 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A politician who was never elected into any legislative bodies hence fails WP:NPOL. In that case, the subject must satisfy general GNG criteria. In this case also, the subject fails it as there is no significant coverage rather than some trivial and incidental coverage. These [24] [25] [26] are the only three good sources where the subject is the primary topic, where one is about the person being infected by Covid-19. The rest of the sources are about something else where he has been mentioned. I only found this [27] extra one as a better source on doing WP:Before, but still not sufficient for getting sigcov even if we combine it all. Fails to get significant coverage hence fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCREATIVE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sourcing is about a complaint they filed on another actor. Not involved in making any notable production either. Ab207 ( talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of the sources are covering about the overall Covid 19 situation in Telengana. Some other are just press releases. This [28] is the only source where the subject is the primary topic. But this is about this person getting admitted into hospital due to Covid-19 and have just 4 sentences in it. This article is just a case of WP:REFBOMB as none of the sources are giving the enough sigcov to establish notability even if we combine all the sources together. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable filmmaker. It appears that he did direct and write 2 semi-notable films, but haven't found RS about him directly. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:23, 12 March 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) 01:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this is the chief of election commission, he has recieved some coverage from press releases regarding the upcoming and past elections. All of the sources are basically just some press releases an interviews. I was not able to find any sources which gives him the in-depth coverage to have an stand alone article. Fails GNG as their is no sigcov. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2021-03 ✍️ create
The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. I have to discount the opinions assuming that nobility are automatically notable, because nothing in our guidelines says so, and it's also not our usual practice (see also WP:OUTCOMES#Monarchs and nobility). This leaves us with the question of whether her media coverage confers notability. The "delete" side has argued that the coverage is not substantial enough for WP:GNG, and these arguments have not been rebutted by the "keep" side. Sandstein 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
As it was discussed a few months ago in the deletion discussions about her siblings ( Princess Adrienne and Prince Nicolas) and cousins ( Prince Alexander and Prince Gabriel), the subject of this article does not appear to be notable either. Aside from the fact that she's a child and the article could potentially fail WP:BLP1E, the topic itself fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. First, because there's no significant coverage of her in the news, unlike some other prominent royal children such as her aunt, Crown Princess Victoria's children. Second, she was stripped off her HRH style about a year and a half ago, which means that she will 'probably' be keeping a low profile ( WP:LOWPROFILE) throughout her life and she will never be a public figure unlike her mother Princess Madeleine. The article should at best be redirected to the appropriate section on Madeleine's article, just like the ones for her siblings. Keivan.f Talk 07:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNGis also wrong. I have already provided an example from Belgium in my previous comment. Other examples would be Infanta Cristina of Spain's children or Princess Märtha Louise of Norway's children, who are also in line to the throne, yet no stand-alone article exists for them, with most of them being deleted or redirected. Keivan.f Talk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article.TompaDompa ( talk) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNGis also inaccurate as I gave about 20 examples of such children, none of whom meet our notability criteria. Clear example of WP:LOWPROFILE. Keivan.f Talk 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. Those are all in the line of succession to the Belgian throne. This was also noted in the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (
I have to discount "keep" arguments based on inherent notability, because there's no community consensus about that for nobilityand
we have always rejected inherited notability, including for nobility and the like, and unlike for politicians we have no community-accepted guidelines presuming the notability of people with inherited titles, respectively). TompaDompa ( talk) 13:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable, which is evidently not true. Keivan.f Talk 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Off topic discussions ( WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. As an example, SergeWoodzing voted keep in the previous discussion on this page yet I decided to ask for his insight; and he decided on his own to vote ‘delete’ this time. I didn’t ask him to vote in a particular way. Also I didn’t invite Surtsicna, Phil Bridger, TompaDomp or Pontificalibus to this discussion either, not to mention that I asked for a few people’s ‘insights’ on their talk pages, not their ‘votes’. So next time get your facts straight before making a fuss. Keivan.f Talk 05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed.If you feel there might be other experienced editors who might help with getting a consensus please don’t hesitate and inform them as well. Keivan.f Talk 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Off topic ( WP:NOTFORUM) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
BLP of an artist that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra ( talk) 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Promo piece with likely COI editing on a non-notable company. The sources are plentiful, but most are directory listings and press release regurgitations, others 50-year-old offline ones that can't easily be verified, hence the bottom line is that even if all the promo fluff were removed, there's not much of substance left. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP.
This was declined at AfC twice, but moved to main space anyway, so let's see what the community says. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I also tried the Internet Archive search which has in the past shown to contain some trade magazine reviews for some pinballs, but I got no hits for this one." The prod was removed with no meaningful rationale, the article was not improved, months have passed... AfD time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Niche browser game, very poorly referenced (mentions in passing/unreliable websites). No indication of reception/reviews/significance. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (video games) and WP:GNG in general. Previous AfD from 2008 ended as 'no consensus', which is telling given how inclusionist we were back then... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Daniel ( talk) 01:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Nothing found on doing a WP:BEFORE. One source in the article is the college website and other one is something like a directory. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Links are not secondary sources. Insufficient notability given, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES applies. So, delete. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No independent relibale sources to establish notability and nothing was found on doing WP:Before. Clearly fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable organization and web site that has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination). I haven't seen the deleted article, so am not tagging G5, but probable G5. Also close to A7. Naïve Google search finds two pages of hits on the organization's own web presence, which shows that it exists, then finds a reference to it in Reddit. Duh. No mention of anything since 2015, when the AFD was closed. One of the references is their own web site, and the second one says nothing about them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org- not about libcom, also very weak WP:NWEB (trivial: no analysis of content in general,
reviewing 163 posts- a footnote that summarizes the content of a thread about music ).
Zones of Proletarian Development- libcom is mentioned in passing as a publisher, no substantial info. Lembit Staan ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
frustrating website to find suitable sources-- yep; see my comment above. Everybody uses, but nobody cares. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a translator station that isn't even in operation anymore. The only sources are fcc filings, giving it zero notability. Rusf10 ( talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*Keep: As this station was sold to Regal Media and wasn't owned by TBN at the time it signed off, redirection to the
List of TBN Affiliates would be incorrect. Declaring this "just another TBN translator" shows that folks, with all due respect to my fellow editor above, haven't even looked at the article. To
Rusf10, the article has 4 references on it. FCC filings are references from a highly notable source, we need to stop acting like they aren't. Presumed notability is indeed extended. An FCC license has been enough for many, many years over at WPRS and had been enough at TVS. Again, with all due respect to
Wcquidditch, I respectfully disagree. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 06:55 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
:::Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! YOU still have missed the point, it wasn't a TBN translator because it wasn't owned by TBN. It was owned by Regal Media. Can't redirect it to List of TBN affiliates when it wasn't owned by TBN or broadcasting TBN programming, now can we? Also, exactly where does it say that a US federal government source isn't "highly notable"? Federal Government sources (ie: anything .gov, anything .mil) is considered HIGHLY reliable under RS. Always has. Not sure where you've been. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 07:51 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
:*I actually would be OK with this. :) -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 20:32 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Neologism that fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEOLOGISM. This term lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, as required by GNG. Many of the sources in the article merely use the word, rather than discuss it (text justifying a term's notability by giving scattered examples of it being used is always a red flag in my view). Google Scholar (linked above) shows it has almost no usage (hence no notability) in the scholarly literature that we prefer per WP:SOURCETYPES (and many of the results for it are for an unrelated all-caps portmanteau of endocrinology and sexology). Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Tweaked. Crossroads -talk- 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Sri Lanka Police Sports Club (cricket). Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 04:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. Daniel ( talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer). If anything reliably sourced is worth merging, that is available from the history. As for the title of the target article, that can be discussed and decided on its talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails
WP:GNG.
Störm
(talk)
01:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer, nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Neither entry is for a "Midfield Airport". The first refers to Midfield Terminal, since renamed. The second is a "midfield airport", not a formal title, just a description. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)