![]() |
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Lots of references to this in terms of geology and specifically coal, because when you look at the correct location on the topos and aerials, it has since been overrun by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, because this is Powder River coal country. There's also a big substation named after the place which was built around 1990, a ways to the west. Before that, it apparently was a single house, and according to the Wyoming State Library, it was Teckla Post Office", named after one of the postmistresses. No evidence I can find that the house was part of a town. Mangoe ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BIO is not met here, notably WP:ANYBIO JusticeForce101 ( talk) 13:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "delete" !votes appear to hae the stronger case. Randykitty ( talk) 18:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see they have been going close to a decade and they have released a couple of singles and an EP. Fails musicbio and sigcov. scope_creep Talk 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Including the comment on the talk page as a "keep" !vote, there is clear consensus. Renaming, adding sources, or any other issues can be handled through normal editing processes. Randykitty ( talk) 18:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable award. Sources provided are all primary or to Government pages, WP:BEFORE didn't bring up any third-party coverage, but admittedly my search is limited as I don't understand Maltese. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable statement article and entirely routine and mediocre event. scope_creep Talk 23:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting for a variety of reasons presented - WP:NEVENT, failure to present WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV and the looking sockpuppet investigation taking place around link spamming.
Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre, resuming in smaller batches (25 articles), articles Category:Massacres of the Tigray War rely on deprecated source (Atlas of the humanitarian situation). This source is a data table listing dates and numbers of casualties. Each line on that data table does not warrant its own article; they do not fulfill the notability guidelines set forth in WP:EVENT. They also have some clear WP:NPOV issues in most articles through the use of other sources that don't mention the specific event, or through social media based source WP:SPS. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 22:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
"I would recommend renomination in much smaller batches, after searches for sources have been completed."Platonk ( talk) 07:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.") The authors of these 106 articles (including these 25) on individual events of the Tigray War are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY (
"the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view").
"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
"An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable."Very few news articles have any such depth of coverage for these individual events.
"Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle."There is no duration of coverage of these individual events.
References
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a notable event, especially considering that people are killed, and kill, every day in every country. The fact that law enforcement is involved does not make the event notable or noteworthy. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The standard week has not yet passed but the consensus is plain and essentially overwhelming to the extent I am not sure what sort of argument could be made to generate any outcome other than keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Player fails WP:NFOOTY. Draftify until first professional appearance. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the companion article to List of country subdivisions by population which was deleted in July 2021 on the basis of WP:NLIST, i.e. there being no reliable source which covered the explicit topic on a worldwide basis, only stats for each country individually which had been collected together. I see no obvious evidence in the sources here to suggest this article should remain when placed under the same scrutiny. 'Comparable country' is actually interesting to me and I'm sure to many others, but it appears to fall under WP:OR unless refs can be produced stating 'did you know X is as big as Y', preferably for all of these but individually if necessary. But then I'm sure there are sources stating 'did you you know X has a bigger population than Y', but it didn't save that article from deletion. I fail to see why one should survive but not the other. If this article is deemed suitable to remain, I suggest the decision to delete the Populations article is revisited as the topics and sources which would support them are so closely related. Crowsus ( talk) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.(emphasis mine) I think it's quite clear that this list, and List of country subdivisions by population for that matter, are both valuable information sources (8000 pageviews this month, so it seems like some of our readers agree). Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Was nominated previously over 10 years ago but there was no participation and closed as no consensus. There is just no significant coverage to be found. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per nom.
Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Just a person doing her job. The first block uses two profiles to construct the article from X of Y clickbait sites. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 21:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relistings, I'm going to assume good faith with the nominator, User:Govvy, and delete.
Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see how this passes general WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. References are WP:ROUTINE sources and are mostly not secondary sources I saw nothing special in my initial google search to suggest otherwise. Govvy ( talk) 10:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Meelick GAA Club is a GAA club situated in County Clare, just outside Limerick City. Every conceivable link I could find has been linked correctly to the wikipedia article. Deleting the article does not delete the GAA Club. If you want further proof it exists please visit the club. It's full postal is Meelick GAA Club, Meelick GAA Clubhouse, Kyleavoher, Meelick, Co Clare, Ireland, V94VH28. It's GPS co-ordinates are 52.6997241N, 08.6550004W — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Muggins91 (
talk •
contribs)
13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
21:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The subject has very little WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, not nearly enough to pass WP:GNG. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, sources do not show "significant roles in films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," nor do the sources show that the subject has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The minimal content and coverage that exists in this article does not make the subject notable for a Wikipedia article. –– FormalDude talk 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
21:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This massive list is just a copy-paste of the material at the copyrighted [12]. I'm not sure if this is really a copy-vio, but I don't think it's notable or encyclopedic to list these this way. Reywas92 Talk 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Adding subarticles.
Reywas92 Talk 05:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is a WP:BLP. I attempted first to salvage this by removing some of the worst WP:PUFFERY, but quickly realized that if I were to do so and remove all unreferenced claims, there would be practically nothing left in the article. The only references appear to be press releases/staff pages from institutions he has been at (so not independent from him) with a single exception in terms of an article published by "NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence" which I can't figure out the reliability and independence of. The only "news article" I can find about the person is this The Guardian blog post (see italics below first image stating "this blog"). This is far from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I do acknowledge that my attempts to find further articles from Google News etc. were frustrated by the seemingly more prominent politician of the same name, so it's not impossible I might have missed something. While Jolly appears to have held several academic positions, I don't think any of these are enough to fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. Ljleppan ( talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
* Delete: I also tried a number of searches (including the Rainbow in the Dark doctrine) to see if there was a possibility of satisfying WP:ACADEMIC but couldn't find anything of substance. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable disc jockey who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search which can easily be verified shows her mentioned only in user generated and self published sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in TV shows. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable Nigerian musician that fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG isn’t met either. A before search did show this which is a pre packaged sponsored post and I’m puzzled as to why this reliable source failed to mention this expressly. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
All evidence is that this is the Adon Ranch: the address given for Adon Ranch Productions lands squarely on this spot, and someone on Google has also tagged it with "Adlon Ranch Quarter Horses" (sic). And well, from the air it looks like a ranch. Topos don't go back very far, and they show more or less what's there now; searching finds a lot of routine government hits because of an oil field and because Adon is the topo quad name, but noting comes up suggesting this was ever a town or even a post office. Mangoe ( talk) 19:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Essentially an amateur footballer who happened to play 2 games of professional football over 5 years ago with his recent career showing no signs of being anywhere near the professional level. Clear consensus that this is, at best, a weak presumption of WP:GNG. Searches in Google News and a Greek-language search came back with practically nothing on him (just namesakes; people more notable/famous than him). The only RS coverage I can find is a passing mention in Balla and another in Kerkida, neither of which are even close to SIGCOV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:ADVERT, Created by blocked sock. Promotional and no WP:SIGCOV. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in TV shows and some music videos. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 18:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Essentially an unsourced BLP created by an SPA tagged for notability since 2017. No hits in ProQuest, nothing of value in Google or DuckDuckGo. Wikipedia mirrors and nothing else. Promotional article; probably an autobiography; doesn't meet WP:GNG on the basis of the searches that I've attempted so we should delete. Searches have been attempted both with and without the middle name. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since it was created. Non-notable person who does not meet WP:GNG. Database profile pages do nothing to support notability. This Goal.com coverage of a suspension is sorely lacking in depth and falls short of SIGCOV requirements. No decent coverage found in a Malaysian search or in Google News. Aside from what is already cited, I found nothing better than an empty GSA profile. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, A non-notable supporting actor having no significant alocades. Lonely Explorer ( talk) 17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn per improvements made/better results than I'd been able to ID. Thanks all Star Mississippi 03:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PROD declined (courtesy @ Curbon7: on the grounds that it needs a deeper dive. Unfortunately, my BEFORE showed only run of the mill churnalism, not independent nor in depth to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:N as there are no secondary sources covering this. Two non reliable sources have claimed that this is a fake quote, no original has ever been found, but the existence of the interview whether or not it is real is simply not notable as there are no reliable secondary sources discussing whether or not it even happened. nableezy - 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple sources - only one source is cited for the article. Tagged for lacking additional sources since 2011. Article subject requests deletion (VRT Ticket 2021111510010276). Geoff | Who, me? 16:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (me). Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:NJournals or
WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "nope". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete.
Randykitty (
talk) 15:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn. Several of the points brought forward below are less than convincing. However, listing in Biological Abstracts and Biosis (inexplicably missed by MIAR), together with the two reviews in JSTOR push this over the bar, barely. As there are no other "delete" !votes, I am withdrawing this nom. --
Randykitty (
talk)
16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"numerous Wikipedia articles, on this and sister projects"), egregiously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. note to Quinnbradlee, I will temporarily restore a copy to your user space if you haven't saved the source. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Lacks coverage in reliable sources i.e. fails WP:GNG and is probably based on original research by the author. It is also a violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. SmartSE ( talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Please don't delete this page. I will work on it. One of your pages says not to put too many sources up before you publish it, so that's what I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnbradlee ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
An odd case of a seemingly non-existent person. Apparently, from what can be gathered from the very unreliable sources here, an informal debate took place during the 1990s between some amateur genealogists concerning the identity of the father of Vonones II and Artabanus II, kings of Parthia. Christian Settipani once identified him as "Darius", the subject of the article and nomination, who is here misleadingly called "Darius II" (there was no king of that name). However, by 1998, the same author had admitted that this was no more than a placeholder name resting on no authority whatsoever. This is revealed by an email which the article cites as a source.
In other words, the genealogist who originally conceived "Darius II" already had long disavowed his historicity before this article was created (see the original revision here, where it is claimed that "Darius II" was the father of the two Parthian kings; the claim has been since removed). It goes without saying that no reliable sources attest any "Darius II of Media Atropatene". The article's contents are ultimately traceable to what seem to be forum posts and private correspondence.
Pinging Agricolae who brought this to my attention. Avilich ( talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Has contested only 4 non-significant matches; fails WP:MMABIO. Htanaungg ( talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is not notable enough for a standalone article, per
WP:NSEASONS: "A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable."
. Lock Haven finished the season 2-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space. I'm sure articles can be found that cover particular games for this particular season, but that doesn't rise to level of significant coverage. At the least, this article's information should be merged to the
PSAC page, or to the
Lock Haven Bald Eagles page.
Spf121188 (
talk)
13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to William, Count of Sully#Marriage. Daniel ( talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Only passing mentions, apparently died young (21 years old?) and had little time to make an impact. Could be redirected to her father. Fram ( talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe Elizabeth is notable. The lady was an Abbess of important abbey. The fact Elizabeth was a noblewoman shouldn't make her notable; as an abbess, Elizabeth had notability. It should be noted that deleting articles about women can't help gender bias on Wikipedia. If others desire deletion, I suggest redirecting the article to this.— Miha ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I believe the article, improved a bit by a user who added the source, should be kept. Keep.— Miha ( talk) 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. WP:BEFORE yields only social media accounts and irrelevant content. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting based on the first AfD and second AfD's nomination. No evidence presented that the subject merits inclusion.
Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I am renominating this article for deletion, basically for the same reason: this person is not notable and should not have a Wikipedia article. I also have to note that @ Dentren: agreed with my position in the sense that the article had a good deal of references, but they are all minimal or don't even mention them. I even made an assessment of some references in the previous nomination. I also have to note that this article was deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia where there was unanimous consensus that the subject is non notable. Bedivere ( talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Borderline, would like the community's opinion on this one. Appears to only have 2 WP:GNG passing sources: [15] and [16]. In my opinion, need one more to demonstrate notability. [17] looks based on a press release, no independent analysis. WP:NCORP may or may not apply. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Koch Marshall Trio. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 12:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Grand Grimoire. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about this article (it was recently AfD on pl wiki as a possible WP:HOAX). I am not sure if this topic is a hoax (actually, after my BEFORE, I don't think it is), but first, tit likely doesn't meet WP:GNG, and second, the current article does not seem to cite any RS, and even has a section on "modern demonology"... so it probably warrants a WP:TNT. I did find one ref that seems possibly reliable and in-depth, The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology by Rosemary Guiley published by Infobase Publishing. IP seems reliable, but the author - less so (according to our article, she was a " a certified hypnotist" and a paranormal topics researcher, and I have serious concerns about "encyclodias" written by authors with such a background. All other sources about this demon are either less reliable, don't meet SIGCOV o both. As pretty much all sources agree this demon was first mentioned (invented...) in the Grand Grimoire and there are few if any sources mentioning them later in any major capacity, perhaps a SOFTDELETE and redirect to that work would be the best option here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those blown up disambig pages - "The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", each of which at the moment has her own page ( Paula Brooks, Huntress (Helena Wayne), and Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)). Our current article has no section on reception or such, just a plot summary for each of the three Huntresses, and as such it seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE failed to reveal anything that's about Huntresses in general (and goes beyond a plot summary). Granted, neither of three Huntress articles is particularly good, and maybe we should just merge all three of them here - but otherwise, this needs to go (or rather, be converted into a regular WP:DISAMBIG; no need to delete history - could be useful if one we decide to merge the said three articles - so I'd suggest just SOFTDELETE by converting this one to disambig without the need to use any admin-level tools). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as CSD G4. Identical article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
An article about this person, contributed by the same editor, was deleted at AfD in January. Subsequently, there was a deleted draft and then the present instance was created this month (as was an article about the subject's work-in-progress "Fading Petals", on which the article creator has declared a COI, and which was speedy-deleted as promotional). I cannot see the extent to which the present article is a repost of that deleted in January, but, aside from the previews of "Fading Petals", most of the references (such as the local paper coverage) would have been available to the previous AfD. As things stand, I would say the subject still fails WP:FILMMAKER and this instance should be deleted as was the decision previously. AllyD ( talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Subject on mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Page lacks independent sources. Meatsgains( talk) 00:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
07:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete only sources are made by the subject Leomk ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 08:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable band due to no significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 ( talk) 06:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Per previous attempts to PROD, does not appear to be notable. Remark on the talk page from almost 10 years ago states " I have tried looking up information for this article but I am not able to find anything that can be reliably sourced. All find are facebook and twitter profile pages that cannot be used here. Found some blog and opinion pieces but that too cannot be used here. not sufficient matter for an infobox either" - and I must agree as I was not able to find anything significant either. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO and all but one source is just birth registers and a list of british peers. Hyperwave11 ( talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
A user has created a run of articles about World Junior and Cadet Karate Championships. I am unsure of their notability as they are junior championships and the articles appear to fail WP:NOSTATS so I’d like a consensus on how to deal with them. Mccapra ( talk) 06:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Anyone desirous of renaming the article is welcome to do so by gathering a consensus on the article talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, event and article come across as a one-off happening that likely would be hard-pressed to be placed elsewhere. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
"It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". Oppose drafitying as this is not a page-quality issue: it is a perfectly well-referenced page and should remain up. Draftifying will also make it less likely that anyone works on it in future to identify whether it did have WP:LASTING effect or not. FOARP ( talk) 09:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 07:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Playing for the Saint Pierre and Miquelon national team does not confer notability. Player also fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Embryo#Development. RL0919 ( talk) 06:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be covered well under Embryo#Development, where it is sourced and in more detail than the recently created article. As a result, I propose that we redirect Embryonic development to Embryo#Development, where the topic can be adequately covered. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I created this page. Your argument makes sense to me. The only thing I would say is that Embryo#Development doesn't currently link to Plant embryonic development (it does have links to the other two pages on specific types of embryonic development, which are Human embryonic development and Animal embryonic development). So I would argue that we'd need to add links to Plant embryonic development in the appropriate places on Embryo#Development before deleting this page. I will try to remember to do that later as I need to go now and I don't want to do it in a rush and mess it up (but obviously if someone else beats me to it that's great). Famedog ( talk) 14:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Update: I have now added the link on the Embryo#Development page. Famedog ( talk) 08:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. As an aside, I would encourage contributors to future deletion discussions to be more concise. Prolix arguments do not always add a lot. Stifle ( talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The the word is in no RS English dictionaries (that I could find). It appears to have some currency as a Hungarian word, ( hu:Archontológia) made from Greek components, but in English "archontologies" are just known as kinds of directories, peerages, etc. The current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org on the web (which it does, since Wikipedia acts as the sole amplifier for the invented English word). Without independent sources on "archontology" an article is not viable. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
1. speedy-deletion criteria met? evidently not; 2. copyright violations: nope; 3. vandalism: nope; 4. advertising/spam: not on the part of the 'inventor', long dead (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021) — and not more than for any random book or TV show (s.b. for details); 5. content forks: nope; 6. neologisms or original theories: nope (in academic use for well more than a century; s.b. for details); 7. failure to find reliable sources: nope (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021); 8. notability guideline: nope (in academic use for well more than a century); 9. living person: nope; 10. redundant/useless template: nope (cf. counter-argument 5 below) 11. overcategorization: nope; 12. unused/obsolete/non-free: nope; 13. contrary to established separate policy: evidently not (for 16 yrs); 14. otherwise not suitable: evidently not (for 16 yrs).
Which 'current' do you mean? Pre-Nov 2021 (by the original author) or the rewrite (by me, *not* the original author - nor in his employ)?
Counter-argument 3a: OR is not in itself a reason for deletion, or is it nowadays? Where does it say so (in the WP:DP)? Besides, you better delete every plot summary of every book, film, TV episode, etc covered in the WP then! Instead, request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 3b: archontology.org is but one website mentioned/listed. Is that 'promotion'? There's a wiki article titled "Ruler (film)" about a Telugu-language film in the 'English' wikipedia. Is that not promotion? Does that not consist of OR? Delete that then! Along with any other article on films, books, etc - esp. if not originally done in English...
Counter-argument 4a: Books published in/since the 17th century (mentioned in the article as of 17 Nov 2021) do certainly constitute independent sources. Not enough? Request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 4b: Either way, the term is clearly used — and has been used long before any of us, incl. the original author, was born (cf. counter-argument 2 above). What the original author did, was to provide a definition and explanation of the term. Isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? Not concise enough? Too much opinion? Well, there's a tag for that.
Counter-argument 5a: A word that has been used for centuries (in academic Latin, German, Hungarian, etc.) or at least decades (in academic English) is clearly not a neologism (again, cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021).
Counter-argument 5b: An encyclopedia like WP is there to provide explanations of words, esp. when such explanation would go beyond a single line fitting into a dictionary like wikt...
Counter-argument 5c: 'Necessity' is in the eye of the beholder. If a word is used and is not a synonym of another, then it is clearly not 'unnecessary'. Nobody is forced to read the article (or use the term for that matter), surely. Many though do (cf. counter-argument 2 above).
176.95.227.240 (
talk)
18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 06:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I am unconvinced of the need for a disambiguation page here. This is a WP:TWODABS page for which the primary topic is probably the vastly more well-developed Benefit corporation article. I would delete this page and redirect the title there. BD2412 T 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
05:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. No arguments were made to assert or establish the subject's notability. ✗ plicit 11:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC due to a lack of multiple, in-depth secondary sources. With the exception of a secondary 1853 book in which he receives a passing mention in a list of assassinated victims, Captain Canaveris receives only primary passing coverage which helps with WP:V but not WP:N. Initial edits to this page and connected bio pages suggest an attempt at using Wikipedia as a genealogy website ( WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Pilaz ( talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
12:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, as it has not received any notable awards and the only coverage is two-sentence long or less descriptions at minor film festivals. The one review I could find does not come from a website with editorial oversight. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
non-notable convention, no reasonable coverage in the years it's been around and defunct. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
fails to meet notability and
WP:NCORP
Advait (
talk) 06:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOCKSTRIKE.
✗
plicit
23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete, No adequate sourcing for the article to be notable enough. As per above, fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Wakowako ( talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per above. Redirecting to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University seems like an option too; the only bits worth salvaging appear to be the name. It certainly exists, it might be having low enrollment or money troubles. In any case, there's no depth of coverage. tedder ( talk) 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this discussion at delete, but the nominator and one of the supporting delete arguments turned out to be sockpuppets. I have undone the closure and relisted this for additional comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm very skeptical of this page but I'm listing as AfD rather than CSD in case someone with better Portuguese can find evidence of notability. The page appears to claim notability for a "franchise" consisting of a book, a video game, and a toy figure. They all appear to exist, but I can't find meaningful coverage of the franchise beyond a few passing references to game reviews and blogs reviewing the toys. I don't think it passes WP:GNG as I can't find significant coverage of the franchise itself, separate from the individual products. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 21:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reopening and relisting as two of the participants have been blocked as sockpuppets. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with
WP:N(E) and
WP:GNG. ||
Orbit
Wharf 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC) sockpuppet –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
* Delete same concern as the 2017 article. Also, should this be nominated
Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship--
Rrmmll22 (
talk) 23:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC) sockpuppet –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: procedural relist as the first two participants have been blocked as sock puppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Minneapolis City Council. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
City council member. Her father was mayor, but that's not her. No reason for notability. Mvqr ( talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. Only references are statistical databases. Does not meet WP:NBASE - the Lincoln Giants were not in a major league level Negro league when he played (a total of 11 games) for the team. No other coverage found; as there are many other people of this name it is possible I missed something. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. None of the sourcing presented convinces me the subject meets WP:GNG, not even through WP:BASIC.
Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a notable person. Article is promotional, books appear self-published. Reviews of plays he was associated with don't even mention his name. I did find a BBC interview, but not enough to meet GNG. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep
WP:GNG#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
Notable person links
Internationally notable director, teacher, author, pedant and dramatist. Notabilty clearly established. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:TWODABS applies. Hatnotes are A hatnote is enough.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep It appears that I was mistaken in my initial source reading. The two appear to be distinct —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 06:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) This article appears to be about the same entity as
Andoni, based upon what I can pull out of the blob of unformatted references. I therefore propose that
Andoni Island it be made into a redirect to
Andoni. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. Just merge it. – Joe ( talk) 07:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This article, which was moved into the mainspace on 9 November 2021, is the same topic as Ki (goddess), which was created in 2007. We should not have two articles on the same thing and, when a new article is created that is redundant to a long-existing article, it has to go. Therefore, I propose this newly created article be redirected to Ki (goddess) with its history preserved, so that the two articles can be made into one. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Ki (goddess). Leomk0403 ( talk) 02:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 1982 AFC Youth Championship. The content remains available under the redirect for anyone desirous of completing the merger. Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article does not credibly assert notability as a
WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As a
WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated
WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a
WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to
1982 AFC Youth Championship deleted (updated 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Contested PROD. WP:BEFORE came up with a few WP:ROUTINE mentions, but nothing significant enough to meet WP:ORG. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
01:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No comments, not eligible for soft deletion, I'm not spinning the wheel and sending it for another week. Stifle ( talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see evidence that he passes NMUSIC with the award being the best claim to notability. On the GNG front While the fr.wiki article is longer, sourcing concerns remain, they don't appear to be independent reliable sources - mostly listings and interview/profiles. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This company (a private sports training facility in the USA) does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've reviewed the sources, and they are very poor for a newly created article: A mixture of irrelevant articles, brief mentions, press releases and 404s. The quality of the article does not seem to have improved much since it was last draftified. This article was never approved via the AFC process. Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Likely fails WP:V, and if not that, then at least WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY are not satisfied. Not one of the sources here (the majority unreliable anyway) so much as mention the subject. One of them, "Athenais article at Ancient Library" (an internet copy of the 19th-century DGRBM) is about two other people, Athenais Philostorgos I and Athenais Philostorgos II, both of which belong to the same family as the alleged subject -- so there's actually a large possibility of confusion here. WP:BEFORE-hand check: the PW, which is probably the best and largest classics encyclopedia, has no individual entry on any "Athenais of Media Atropatene", whereas a Google search returns (after discarding Wikipedia forks/mirrors) almost invariably one of the two "Athenais Philostorgos" I mentioned earlier. The part about the coinage is referenced to a numismatics website which, again, does not identify her; that entire section appears to be WP:OR and may, for all I know, be 100% bogus. The rest of the article is just filler genealogical trivia: maternal and paternal grandparents, uncle and aunt-in-marriage, basically nothing about the subject itself. Even ignoring the question of verifiability, there just doesn't seem to be enough information to write an article about this.
I PRODed this a couple months ago, but the notice was removed by you-know-who, with no justification as usual, so I have to bring this here. Avilich ( talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Article about a government commissioner of no special notability - one of many. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 11:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levelsare presumed notable. I don't think that this is limited to elected officials; judges are often appointed, and it would be odd to read the guideline in a way that would include elected judges and exclude appointed ones. Since Nigeria is a federal republic, I believe that the guideline extends a presumption of notability to individuals who have held statewide office in Nigeria, even if that office is appointed. Therefore, I presume this individual to be notable. While Nigeria's official language is English, I'd expect there to be local media and other sources written in local languages that would be hard to find. As a result, I don't see a weak fail on GNG as disqualifying when WP:NPOL indicates that we should presume notability. I believe that keeping the article would be best. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
The Grid (
talk)
17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor does not automatically get an instant notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test is not in the list of roles per se, but in the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate the significance of those roles: critical analysis about his performances, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major acting awards, and on and so forth. But the only discernible notability claim here is that roles were had, and the only reference is an IMDb-style directory of voice actors which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source, and that's not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
The Grid (
talk)
17:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2021-10 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Freddie Mercury#Relationships. Stifle ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article has been on NPP for years and all we've got is a number of tags. I believe that this article should be merged and redirected to Freddie Mercury#Relationships. First of all almost all the information from this article is already there. Secondly, there's no coverage on the subject as an independent individual - only in connection to FM. I have found many additional sources that can be added to Freddy's article to back the statements about their relationship. Here they are - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Talk to me) Less Unless ( talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
00:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Lots of references to this in terms of geology and specifically coal, because when you look at the correct location on the topos and aerials, it has since been overrun by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, because this is Powder River coal country. There's also a big substation named after the place which was built around 1990, a ways to the west. Before that, it apparently was a single house, and according to the Wyoming State Library, it was Teckla Post Office", named after one of the postmistresses. No evidence I can find that the house was part of a town. Mangoe ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BIO is not met here, notably WP:ANYBIO JusticeForce101 ( talk) 13:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "delete" !votes appear to hae the stronger case. Randykitty ( talk) 18:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see they have been going close to a decade and they have released a couple of singles and an EP. Fails musicbio and sigcov. scope_creep Talk 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Including the comment on the talk page as a "keep" !vote, there is clear consensus. Renaming, adding sources, or any other issues can be handled through normal editing processes. Randykitty ( talk) 18:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable award. Sources provided are all primary or to Government pages, WP:BEFORE didn't bring up any third-party coverage, but admittedly my search is limited as I don't understand Maltese. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable statement article and entirely routine and mediocre event. scope_creep Talk 23:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting for a variety of reasons presented - WP:NEVENT, failure to present WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV and the looking sockpuppet investigation taking place around link spamming.
Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre, resuming in smaller batches (25 articles), articles Category:Massacres of the Tigray War rely on deprecated source (Atlas of the humanitarian situation). This source is a data table listing dates and numbers of casualties. Each line on that data table does not warrant its own article; they do not fulfill the notability guidelines set forth in WP:EVENT. They also have some clear WP:NPOV issues in most articles through the use of other sources that don't mention the specific event, or through social media based source WP:SPS. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 22:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
"I would recommend renomination in much smaller batches, after searches for sources have been completed."Platonk ( talk) 07:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.") The authors of these 106 articles (including these 25) on individual events of the Tigray War are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY (
"the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view").
"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
"An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable."Very few news articles have any such depth of coverage for these individual events.
"Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle."There is no duration of coverage of these individual events.
References
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a notable event, especially considering that people are killed, and kill, every day in every country. The fact that law enforcement is involved does not make the event notable or noteworthy. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The standard week has not yet passed but the consensus is plain and essentially overwhelming to the extent I am not sure what sort of argument could be made to generate any outcome other than keep. Fenix down ( talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Player fails WP:NFOOTY. Draftify until first professional appearance. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the companion article to List of country subdivisions by population which was deleted in July 2021 on the basis of WP:NLIST, i.e. there being no reliable source which covered the explicit topic on a worldwide basis, only stats for each country individually which had been collected together. I see no obvious evidence in the sources here to suggest this article should remain when placed under the same scrutiny. 'Comparable country' is actually interesting to me and I'm sure to many others, but it appears to fall under WP:OR unless refs can be produced stating 'did you know X is as big as Y', preferably for all of these but individually if necessary. But then I'm sure there are sources stating 'did you you know X has a bigger population than Y', but it didn't save that article from deletion. I fail to see why one should survive but not the other. If this article is deemed suitable to remain, I suggest the decision to delete the Populations article is revisited as the topics and sources which would support them are so closely related. Crowsus ( talk) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.(emphasis mine) I think it's quite clear that this list, and List of country subdivisions by population for that matter, are both valuable information sources (8000 pageviews this month, so it seems like some of our readers agree). Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Was nominated previously over 10 years ago but there was no participation and closed as no consensus. There is just no significant coverage to be found. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per nom.
Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Just a person doing her job. The first block uses two profiles to construct the article from X of Y clickbait sites. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 21:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relistings, I'm going to assume good faith with the nominator, User:Govvy, and delete.
Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see how this passes general WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. References are WP:ROUTINE sources and are mostly not secondary sources I saw nothing special in my initial google search to suggest otherwise. Govvy ( talk) 10:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Meelick GAA Club is a GAA club situated in County Clare, just outside Limerick City. Every conceivable link I could find has been linked correctly to the wikipedia article. Deleting the article does not delete the GAA Club. If you want further proof it exists please visit the club. It's full postal is Meelick GAA Club, Meelick GAA Clubhouse, Kyleavoher, Meelick, Co Clare, Ireland, V94VH28. It's GPS co-ordinates are 52.6997241N, 08.6550004W — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Muggins91 (
talk •
contribs)
13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
21:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The subject has very little WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, not nearly enough to pass WP:GNG. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, sources do not show "significant roles in films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," nor do the sources show that the subject has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The minimal content and coverage that exists in this article does not make the subject notable for a Wikipedia article. –– FormalDude talk 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
21:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This massive list is just a copy-paste of the material at the copyrighted [12]. I'm not sure if this is really a copy-vio, but I don't think it's notable or encyclopedic to list these this way. Reywas92 Talk 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Adding subarticles.
Reywas92 Talk 05:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is a WP:BLP. I attempted first to salvage this by removing some of the worst WP:PUFFERY, but quickly realized that if I were to do so and remove all unreferenced claims, there would be practically nothing left in the article. The only references appear to be press releases/staff pages from institutions he has been at (so not independent from him) with a single exception in terms of an article published by "NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence" which I can't figure out the reliability and independence of. The only "news article" I can find about the person is this The Guardian blog post (see italics below first image stating "this blog"). This is far from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I do acknowledge that my attempts to find further articles from Google News etc. were frustrated by the seemingly more prominent politician of the same name, so it's not impossible I might have missed something. While Jolly appears to have held several academic positions, I don't think any of these are enough to fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. Ljleppan ( talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
* Delete: I also tried a number of searches (including the Rainbow in the Dark doctrine) to see if there was a possibility of satisfying WP:ACADEMIC but couldn't find anything of substance. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable disc jockey who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search which can easily be verified shows her mentioned only in user generated and self published sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in TV shows. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable Nigerian musician that fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG isn’t met either. A before search did show this which is a pre packaged sponsored post and I’m puzzled as to why this reliable source failed to mention this expressly. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
All evidence is that this is the Adon Ranch: the address given for Adon Ranch Productions lands squarely on this spot, and someone on Google has also tagged it with "Adlon Ranch Quarter Horses" (sic). And well, from the air it looks like a ranch. Topos don't go back very far, and they show more or less what's there now; searching finds a lot of routine government hits because of an oil field and because Adon is the topo quad name, but noting comes up suggesting this was ever a town or even a post office. Mangoe ( talk) 19:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Essentially an amateur footballer who happened to play 2 games of professional football over 5 years ago with his recent career showing no signs of being anywhere near the professional level. Clear consensus that this is, at best, a weak presumption of WP:GNG. Searches in Google News and a Greek-language search came back with practically nothing on him (just namesakes; people more notable/famous than him). The only RS coverage I can find is a passing mention in Balla and another in Kerkida, neither of which are even close to SIGCOV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:ADVERT, Created by blocked sock. Promotional and no WP:SIGCOV. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in TV shows and some music videos. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 18:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Essentially an unsourced BLP created by an SPA tagged for notability since 2017. No hits in ProQuest, nothing of value in Google or DuckDuckGo. Wikipedia mirrors and nothing else. Promotional article; probably an autobiography; doesn't meet WP:GNG on the basis of the searches that I've attempted so we should delete. Searches have been attempted both with and without the middle name. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since it was created. Non-notable person who does not meet WP:GNG. Database profile pages do nothing to support notability. This Goal.com coverage of a suspension is sorely lacking in depth and falls short of SIGCOV requirements. No decent coverage found in a Malaysian search or in Google News. Aside from what is already cited, I found nothing better than an empty GSA profile. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, A non-notable supporting actor having no significant alocades. Lonely Explorer ( talk) 17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn per improvements made/better results than I'd been able to ID. Thanks all Star Mississippi 03:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PROD declined (courtesy @ Curbon7: on the grounds that it needs a deeper dive. Unfortunately, my BEFORE showed only run of the mill churnalism, not independent nor in depth to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:N as there are no secondary sources covering this. Two non reliable sources have claimed that this is a fake quote, no original has ever been found, but the existence of the interview whether or not it is real is simply not notable as there are no reliable secondary sources discussing whether or not it even happened. nableezy - 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple sources - only one source is cited for the article. Tagged for lacking additional sources since 2011. Article subject requests deletion (VRT Ticket 2021111510010276). Geoff | Who, me? 16:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (me). Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:NJournals or
WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "nope". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete.
Randykitty (
talk) 15:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn. Several of the points brought forward below are less than convincing. However, listing in Biological Abstracts and Biosis (inexplicably missed by MIAR), together with the two reviews in JSTOR push this over the bar, barely. As there are no other "delete" !votes, I am withdrawing this nom. --
Randykitty (
talk)
16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
"numerous Wikipedia articles, on this and sister projects"), egregiously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. note to Quinnbradlee, I will temporarily restore a copy to your user space if you haven't saved the source. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Lacks coverage in reliable sources i.e. fails WP:GNG and is probably based on original research by the author. It is also a violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. SmartSE ( talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Please don't delete this page. I will work on it. One of your pages says not to put too many sources up before you publish it, so that's what I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnbradlee ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
An odd case of a seemingly non-existent person. Apparently, from what can be gathered from the very unreliable sources here, an informal debate took place during the 1990s between some amateur genealogists concerning the identity of the father of Vonones II and Artabanus II, kings of Parthia. Christian Settipani once identified him as "Darius", the subject of the article and nomination, who is here misleadingly called "Darius II" (there was no king of that name). However, by 1998, the same author had admitted that this was no more than a placeholder name resting on no authority whatsoever. This is revealed by an email which the article cites as a source.
In other words, the genealogist who originally conceived "Darius II" already had long disavowed his historicity before this article was created (see the original revision here, where it is claimed that "Darius II" was the father of the two Parthian kings; the claim has been since removed). It goes without saying that no reliable sources attest any "Darius II of Media Atropatene". The article's contents are ultimately traceable to what seem to be forum posts and private correspondence.
Pinging Agricolae who brought this to my attention. Avilich ( talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Has contested only 4 non-significant matches; fails WP:MMABIO. Htanaungg ( talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is not notable enough for a standalone article, per
WP:NSEASONS: "A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable."
. Lock Haven finished the season 2-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space. I'm sure articles can be found that cover particular games for this particular season, but that doesn't rise to level of significant coverage. At the least, this article's information should be merged to the
PSAC page, or to the
Lock Haven Bald Eagles page.
Spf121188 (
talk)
13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to William, Count of Sully#Marriage. Daniel ( talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Only passing mentions, apparently died young (21 years old?) and had little time to make an impact. Could be redirected to her father. Fram ( talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe Elizabeth is notable. The lady was an Abbess of important abbey. The fact Elizabeth was a noblewoman shouldn't make her notable; as an abbess, Elizabeth had notability. It should be noted that deleting articles about women can't help gender bias on Wikipedia. If others desire deletion, I suggest redirecting the article to this.— Miha ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I believe the article, improved a bit by a user who added the source, should be kept. Keep.— Miha ( talk) 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. WP:BEFORE yields only social media accounts and irrelevant content. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting based on the first AfD and second AfD's nomination. No evidence presented that the subject merits inclusion.
Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I am renominating this article for deletion, basically for the same reason: this person is not notable and should not have a Wikipedia article. I also have to note that @ Dentren: agreed with my position in the sense that the article had a good deal of references, but they are all minimal or don't even mention them. I even made an assessment of some references in the previous nomination. I also have to note that this article was deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia where there was unanimous consensus that the subject is non notable. Bedivere ( talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Borderline, would like the community's opinion on this one. Appears to only have 2 WP:GNG passing sources: [15] and [16]. In my opinion, need one more to demonstrate notability. [17] looks based on a press release, no independent analysis. WP:NCORP may or may not apply. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Koch Marshall Trio. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 12:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Grand Grimoire. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about this article (it was recently AfD on pl wiki as a possible WP:HOAX). I am not sure if this topic is a hoax (actually, after my BEFORE, I don't think it is), but first, tit likely doesn't meet WP:GNG, and second, the current article does not seem to cite any RS, and even has a section on "modern demonology"... so it probably warrants a WP:TNT. I did find one ref that seems possibly reliable and in-depth, The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology by Rosemary Guiley published by Infobase Publishing. IP seems reliable, but the author - less so (according to our article, she was a " a certified hypnotist" and a paranormal topics researcher, and I have serious concerns about "encyclodias" written by authors with such a background. All other sources about this demon are either less reliable, don't meet SIGCOV o both. As pretty much all sources agree this demon was first mentioned (invented...) in the Grand Grimoire and there are few if any sources mentioning them later in any major capacity, perhaps a SOFTDELETE and redirect to that work would be the best option here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those blown up disambig pages - "The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", each of which at the moment has her own page ( Paula Brooks, Huntress (Helena Wayne), and Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)). Our current article has no section on reception or such, just a plot summary for each of the three Huntresses, and as such it seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE failed to reveal anything that's about Huntresses in general (and goes beyond a plot summary). Granted, neither of three Huntress articles is particularly good, and maybe we should just merge all three of them here - but otherwise, this needs to go (or rather, be converted into a regular WP:DISAMBIG; no need to delete history - could be useful if one we decide to merge the said three articles - so I'd suggest just SOFTDELETE by converting this one to disambig without the need to use any admin-level tools). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as CSD G4. Identical article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
An article about this person, contributed by the same editor, was deleted at AfD in January. Subsequently, there was a deleted draft and then the present instance was created this month (as was an article about the subject's work-in-progress "Fading Petals", on which the article creator has declared a COI, and which was speedy-deleted as promotional). I cannot see the extent to which the present article is a repost of that deleted in January, but, aside from the previews of "Fading Petals", most of the references (such as the local paper coverage) would have been available to the previous AfD. As things stand, I would say the subject still fails WP:FILMMAKER and this instance should be deleted as was the decision previously. AllyD ( talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Subject on mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Page lacks independent sources. Meatsgains( talk) 00:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
07:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete only sources are made by the subject Leomk ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 08:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable band due to no significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 ( talk) 06:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Per previous attempts to PROD, does not appear to be notable. Remark on the talk page from almost 10 years ago states " I have tried looking up information for this article but I am not able to find anything that can be reliably sourced. All find are facebook and twitter profile pages that cannot be used here. Found some blog and opinion pieces but that too cannot be used here. not sufficient matter for an infobox either" - and I must agree as I was not able to find anything significant either. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO and all but one source is just birth registers and a list of british peers. Hyperwave11 ( talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
A user has created a run of articles about World Junior and Cadet Karate Championships. I am unsure of their notability as they are junior championships and the articles appear to fail WP:NOSTATS so I’d like a consensus on how to deal with them. Mccapra ( talk) 06:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Anyone desirous of renaming the article is welcome to do so by gathering a consensus on the article talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, event and article come across as a one-off happening that likely would be hard-pressed to be placed elsewhere. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
"It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". Oppose drafitying as this is not a page-quality issue: it is a perfectly well-referenced page and should remain up. Draftifying will also make it less likely that anyone works on it in future to identify whether it did have WP:LASTING effect or not. FOARP ( talk) 09:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 07:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Playing for the Saint Pierre and Miquelon national team does not confer notability. Player also fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Embryo#Development. RL0919 ( talk) 06:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be covered well under Embryo#Development, where it is sourced and in more detail than the recently created article. As a result, I propose that we redirect Embryonic development to Embryo#Development, where the topic can be adequately covered. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I created this page. Your argument makes sense to me. The only thing I would say is that Embryo#Development doesn't currently link to Plant embryonic development (it does have links to the other two pages on specific types of embryonic development, which are Human embryonic development and Animal embryonic development). So I would argue that we'd need to add links to Plant embryonic development in the appropriate places on Embryo#Development before deleting this page. I will try to remember to do that later as I need to go now and I don't want to do it in a rush and mess it up (but obviously if someone else beats me to it that's great). Famedog ( talk) 14:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Update: I have now added the link on the Embryo#Development page. Famedog ( talk) 08:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. As an aside, I would encourage contributors to future deletion discussions to be more concise. Prolix arguments do not always add a lot. Stifle ( talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The the word is in no RS English dictionaries (that I could find). It appears to have some currency as a Hungarian word, ( hu:Archontológia) made from Greek components, but in English "archontologies" are just known as kinds of directories, peerages, etc. The current article appears composed of OR, and was seemingly created to promote archontology.org on the web (which it does, since Wikipedia acts as the sole amplifier for the invented English word). Without independent sources on "archontology" an article is not viable. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
1. speedy-deletion criteria met? evidently not; 2. copyright violations: nope; 3. vandalism: nope; 4. advertising/spam: not on the part of the 'inventor', long dead (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021) — and not more than for any random book or TV show (s.b. for details); 5. content forks: nope; 6. neologisms or original theories: nope (in academic use for well more than a century; s.b. for details); 7. failure to find reliable sources: nope (cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021); 8. notability guideline: nope (in academic use for well more than a century); 9. living person: nope; 10. redundant/useless template: nope (cf. counter-argument 5 below) 11. overcategorization: nope; 12. unused/obsolete/non-free: nope; 13. contrary to established separate policy: evidently not (for 16 yrs); 14. otherwise not suitable: evidently not (for 16 yrs).
Which 'current' do you mean? Pre-Nov 2021 (by the original author) or the rewrite (by me, *not* the original author - nor in his employ)?
Counter-argument 3a: OR is not in itself a reason for deletion, or is it nowadays? Where does it say so (in the WP:DP)? Besides, you better delete every plot summary of every book, film, TV episode, etc covered in the WP then! Instead, request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 3b: archontology.org is but one website mentioned/listed. Is that 'promotion'? There's a wiki article titled "Ruler (film)" about a Telugu-language film in the 'English' wikipedia. Is that not promotion? Does that not consist of OR? Delete that then! Along with any other article on films, books, etc - esp. if not originally done in English...
Counter-argument 4a: Books published in/since the 17th century (mentioned in the article as of 17 Nov 2021) do certainly constitute independent sources. Not enough? Request additional sources, why don't you?
Counter-argument 4b: Either way, the term is clearly used — and has been used long before any of us, incl. the original author, was born (cf. counter-argument 2 above). What the original author did, was to provide a definition and explanation of the term. Isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? Not concise enough? Too much opinion? Well, there's a tag for that.
Counter-argument 5a: A word that has been used for centuries (in academic Latin, German, Hungarian, etc.) or at least decades (in academic English) is clearly not a neologism (again, cf. article as of 17 Nov 2021).
Counter-argument 5b: An encyclopedia like WP is there to provide explanations of words, esp. when such explanation would go beyond a single line fitting into a dictionary like wikt...
Counter-argument 5c: 'Necessity' is in the eye of the beholder. If a word is used and is not a synonym of another, then it is clearly not 'unnecessary'. Nobody is forced to read the article (or use the term for that matter), surely. Many though do (cf. counter-argument 2 above).
176.95.227.240 (
talk)
18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 06:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I am unconvinced of the need for a disambiguation page here. This is a WP:TWODABS page for which the primary topic is probably the vastly more well-developed Benefit corporation article. I would delete this page and redirect the title there. BD2412 T 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
05:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. No arguments were made to assert or establish the subject's notability. ✗ plicit 11:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC due to a lack of multiple, in-depth secondary sources. With the exception of a secondary 1853 book in which he receives a passing mention in a list of assassinated victims, Captain Canaveris receives only primary passing coverage which helps with WP:V but not WP:N. Initial edits to this page and connected bio pages suggest an attempt at using Wikipedia as a genealogy website ( WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Pilaz ( talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
12:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, as it has not received any notable awards and the only coverage is two-sentence long or less descriptions at minor film festivals. The one review I could find does not come from a website with editorial oversight. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
non-notable convention, no reasonable coverage in the years it's been around and defunct. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
fails to meet notability and
WP:NCORP
Advait (
talk) 06:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOCKSTRIKE.
✗
plicit
23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete, No adequate sourcing for the article to be notable enough. As per above, fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Wakowako ( talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per above. Redirecting to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University seems like an option too; the only bits worth salvaging appear to be the name. It certainly exists, it might be having low enrollment or money troubles. In any case, there's no depth of coverage. tedder ( talk) 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this discussion at delete, but the nominator and one of the supporting delete arguments turned out to be sockpuppets. I have undone the closure and relisted this for additional comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
02:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm very skeptical of this page but I'm listing as AfD rather than CSD in case someone with better Portuguese can find evidence of notability. The page appears to claim notability for a "franchise" consisting of a book, a video game, and a toy figure. They all appear to exist, but I can't find meaningful coverage of the franchise beyond a few passing references to game reviews and blogs reviewing the toys. I don't think it passes WP:GNG as I can't find significant coverage of the franchise itself, separate from the individual products. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 21:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reopening and relisting as two of the participants have been blocked as sockpuppets. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet with
WP:N(E) and
WP:GNG. ||
Orbit
Wharf 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC) sockpuppet –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
* Delete same concern as the 2017 article. Also, should this be nominated
Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship--
Rrmmll22 (
talk) 23:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC) sockpuppet –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: procedural relist as the first two participants have been blocked as sock puppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Minneapolis City Council. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
City council member. Her father was mayor, but that's not her. No reason for notability. Mvqr ( talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. Only references are statistical databases. Does not meet WP:NBASE - the Lincoln Giants were not in a major league level Negro league when he played (a total of 11 games) for the team. No other coverage found; as there are many other people of this name it is possible I missed something. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. None of the sourcing presented convinces me the subject meets WP:GNG, not even through WP:BASIC.
Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a notable person. Article is promotional, books appear self-published. Reviews of plays he was associated with don't even mention his name. I did find a BBC interview, but not enough to meet GNG. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep
WP:GNG#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
Notable person links
Internationally notable director, teacher, author, pedant and dramatist. Notabilty clearly established. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:TWODABS applies. Hatnotes are A hatnote is enough.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep It appears that I was mistaken in my initial source reading. The two appear to be distinct —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 06:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) This article appears to be about the same entity as
Andoni, based upon what I can pull out of the blob of unformatted references. I therefore propose that
Andoni Island it be made into a redirect to
Andoni. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. Just merge it. – Joe ( talk) 07:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This article, which was moved into the mainspace on 9 November 2021, is the same topic as Ki (goddess), which was created in 2007. We should not have two articles on the same thing and, when a new article is created that is redundant to a long-existing article, it has to go. Therefore, I propose this newly created article be redirected to Ki (goddess) with its history preserved, so that the two articles can be made into one. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Ki (goddess). Leomk0403 ( talk) 02:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 1982 AFC Youth Championship. The content remains available under the redirect for anyone desirous of completing the merger. Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article does not credibly assert notability as a
WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As a
WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated
WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a
WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to
1982 AFC Youth Championship deleted (updated 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
01:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Contested PROD. WP:BEFORE came up with a few WP:ROUTINE mentions, but nothing significant enough to meet WP:ORG. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
01:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No comments, not eligible for soft deletion, I'm not spinning the wheel and sending it for another week. Stifle ( talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see evidence that he passes NMUSIC with the award being the best claim to notability. On the GNG front While the fr.wiki article is longer, sourcing concerns remain, they don't appear to be independent reliable sources - mostly listings and interview/profiles. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This company (a private sports training facility in the USA) does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've reviewed the sources, and they are very poor for a newly created article: A mixture of irrelevant articles, brief mentions, press releases and 404s. The quality of the article does not seem to have improved much since it was last draftified. This article was never approved via the AFC process. Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Likely fails WP:V, and if not that, then at least WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY are not satisfied. Not one of the sources here (the majority unreliable anyway) so much as mention the subject. One of them, "Athenais article at Ancient Library" (an internet copy of the 19th-century DGRBM) is about two other people, Athenais Philostorgos I and Athenais Philostorgos II, both of which belong to the same family as the alleged subject -- so there's actually a large possibility of confusion here. WP:BEFORE-hand check: the PW, which is probably the best and largest classics encyclopedia, has no individual entry on any "Athenais of Media Atropatene", whereas a Google search returns (after discarding Wikipedia forks/mirrors) almost invariably one of the two "Athenais Philostorgos" I mentioned earlier. The part about the coinage is referenced to a numismatics website which, again, does not identify her; that entire section appears to be WP:OR and may, for all I know, be 100% bogus. The rest of the article is just filler genealogical trivia: maternal and paternal grandparents, uncle and aunt-in-marriage, basically nothing about the subject itself. Even ignoring the question of verifiability, there just doesn't seem to be enough information to write an article about this.
I PRODed this a couple months ago, but the notice was removed by you-know-who, with no justification as usual, so I have to bring this here. Avilich ( talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Article about a government commissioner of no special notability - one of many. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 11:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levelsare presumed notable. I don't think that this is limited to elected officials; judges are often appointed, and it would be odd to read the guideline in a way that would include elected judges and exclude appointed ones. Since Nigeria is a federal republic, I believe that the guideline extends a presumption of notability to individuals who have held statewide office in Nigeria, even if that office is appointed. Therefore, I presume this individual to be notable. While Nigeria's official language is English, I'd expect there to be local media and other sources written in local languages that would be hard to find. As a result, I don't see a weak fail on GNG as disqualifying when WP:NPOL indicates that we should presume notability. I believe that keeping the article would be best. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
The Grid (
talk)
17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor does not automatically get an instant notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test is not in the list of roles per se, but in the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate the significance of those roles: critical analysis about his performances, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major acting awards, and on and so forth. But the only discernible notability claim here is that roles were had, and the only reference is an IMDb-style directory of voice actors which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source, and that's not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
The Grid (
talk)
17:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
2021-10 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Freddie Mercury#Relationships. Stifle ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article has been on NPP for years and all we've got is a number of tags. I believe that this article should be merged and redirected to Freddie Mercury#Relationships. First of all almost all the information from this article is already there. Secondly, there's no coverage on the subject as an independent individual - only in connection to FM. I have found many additional sources that can be added to Freddy's article to back the statements about their relationship. Here they are - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Talk to me) Less Unless ( talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liamyangll (
talk to me! |
My contribs!)
00:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)