The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A meticulously, thoroughly researched article, but no indication of why she is notable after all. It looks as if all references here are just passing mentions, and looking for other sources didn't present me with anything better. Her roles are either very minor, or in very minor productions. Perhaps I missed the few sources here which are really about her instead of just mentioning her: in that case, please indicate here which reliable, independent sources give the necessary significant attention. Fram ( talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for activists. The notability claim here is that he was involved in a group, but the potential notability of the group is not necessarily an instant notability freebie for every individual member of it -- in order to establish him as notable, there have to be reliable sources about him and his work. But there are none here, and the article was created by an editor whose username strongly suggests that they're a relative of the subject (which is a conflict of interest). As I don't have access to any database in which I could recover American newspaper coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better resources can actually improve the sourcing, but nothing stated in the text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have his notability established through media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This page appears to be promotional in nature. It was created in 2017 by an account named MimicT, which suggests a close association to the original researcher, Jianxing Wu. The text praises Wu's cybersecurity theories uncritically and compares them favorably to prior approaches. There are several citations, but they all trace back directly to Jiangxing Wu.
Wu has written an academic book on this subject, so presumably there is some kernel of scholarship to all this. However, the text is written in what appears to be a deliberately obfuscatory style reminiscent of the Sokal affair. I am not a computer security researcher, but I'm a software professional and the co-author of a series of books about system administration, and most of this article reads as gobbledygook to me. It's hard to avoid the impression that Wu set up this page in a bid for academic credentialling. NillaGoon ( talk) 22:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient secondary sources to show that this subject meets our notability criteria. Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Agreeing with the nominator and the one participant.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
An inappropriately cited article that fails to show that this subject has significant notability within the field of astrology. Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. I concur regarding failure to meet WP:NORG and WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. There are a few interviews and mentions on Google News search but I was not able to find the independent, in depth coverage required for NORG. ( t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per nom and participants: fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable company. Neither of the cited sources, nor any others I could find, provided significant coverage in independent sources. ( t · c) buidhe 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Concur that this event is not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON and maybe a dash of WP:CRYSTAL.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable future event, does not meet WP:NEVENT yet. The only independent coverage I found is https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/all-out-election-called-wigan-16909874 ( t · c) buidhe 21:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack). Per comments - merge away anything of value and redirect.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirect these three songs to The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack), and merge text as appropriate. These three songs fail WP:NSONGS because they are all mentioned in the context of the album. None of them have gained significant in-depth coverage on their own. The album article has very little prose; it should be fleshed out with text merged from the song articles. Binksternet ( talk) 20:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge Could be a subsection in the article about the soundtrack itself, the song alone isn't notable; you put the three of them mentioned above in sections in the soundtrack article, I think you'd have a rather good collection of information. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Convinced that this team isn't eligible for an article at this time.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Amateur Rugby team in the village of Bilambil, New South Wales (Population 500). Given that about 12% of Australians are males aged 12-35%, they would have about 50 available players to staff their teams to play against the other villages/small towns in the region. No notable achievements or indept sources Bumbubookworm ( talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Convinced by the arguments presented below - film is in progress and coverage is flowing.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, the film has not even been confirmed its release date, just saying 2022.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 14:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
19:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus established that GNG is not met and it also seems that any claim to passing NFOOTY is also rebutted, whilst the player may have made preliminary squad, the is no evidence that they featured in a full international match. Fenix down ( talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY as France doesn't have any women's professional leagues. The only article I can find on her is this, which is hidden behind a paywall. I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Nehme 1499 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
multiple sources are generally expected. Nehme 1499 12:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After three relistings and extensive discussion, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired in this discussion. North America 1000 11:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds previously without prejudice against being nominated again on its own. In my view, Van Raay and Louise van Oosten (already up for AfD) were the only players from that previous discussion that do not demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG. I believe that this article should be deleted because it's based on a teenager with no claim to significance who is not in the public eye at all. A Google News search yields only passing mentions in match reports, most of which are from ADO Den Haag's own website, an unacceptable source when it comes to establishing notability. A Dutch source search similarly comes up with very little. AD has one article which looks like it's more than a passing mention but, when you look at it closely, it's almost entirely just a long direct quote from her and contains very little input from a third party. GNG requires multiple sources.
Please can anyone arguing for 'keep' please provide WP:THREE sources addressing Van Raay directly and in depth? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some degree of coverage. Editors are reminded that articles produced on a player by the player's employer, I.e. their club are not considered to be independent but are essentially
WP:PRIMARY. This currently leaves us with two sources of reasonable length. Close but probably not
close enough yet to say keep votes have presented strong enough arguments to create a valid consensus. Definitely scope for further discussion though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
20:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.Interviews are primary sources according to policy (which is reinforced at WP:PRIMARYNEWS), although historically if the interviewer provides significant analysis or background on the subject using info not derived from the interview, such a source may contribute to notability. In this case that's irrelevant since none of the refs contain such secondary commentary. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Examples
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus. Not sure if we will achieve one here this time but no harm in extending for a final week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Option Canada (political party). Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a former leader of a fringe political party with no legislative representation during his leadership (or at any other time in Canadian history). To be fair, the article was first created at a time when that was accepted as an "inherent" notability claim that guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia -- but our inclusion criteria have long since been tightened up, and no longer confer an automatic notability freebie on fringe political party leaders in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage. But apart from three primary source footnotes that aren't support for notability at all (a YouTube video, his own LinkedIn and the self-published org chart of his own post-political employer), this is otherwise "referenced" to citations of the "name of newspaper and date but no title of any actual piece of content in said newspaper on said date, parenthetically inserted directly into body text rather than being embedded inside reference tags" variety -- and after doing a ProQuest search to investigate what those sources were, I only found glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and a small smattering of purely run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, with absolutely no evidence of coverage that was substantively about him for the purposes of building notability. So again, this was fine by the standards of the time when it was created -- but by the standards of 2021, he doesn't have any notability claim strong enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 19:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG WP:ACTOR, etc, at this time.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is about an actress that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Perhaps a case of too soon for an article on Wikipedia. The article has been partially hidden as a potential copyright violation as the text is a rewording, at leat in parts, of the IMDB biography submitted by the actor herself, under the name Mercedes Gendron. My search for reliable sourcing under "Mercedes Gendron" turned up little. Searching under "Mercedes De La Cruz" turns up much more resultsm], but they are interviews, announcements, and insubstantial coverage. The sourcing in the article is the same sort of stuff. At the time of nomination, there are 6 sources.
She has had some roles in made for TV movies. But these are note really notable films. Other roles mentioned seemed to be worded to appear more substantial than they really are. For example, She had a role in "The WB's Supernatural opposite Jared Padalecki". A check with IMDB credits shows that she has been on two episodes. Once as "Porn Star 6", and another time as "Rabid #1". Whpq ( talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Subject fails WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails notability guideline WP:N Victmich ( talk) 17:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The same day that the subject received a heroism medal, so did "schoolboy Richard W. Holmes ... for swimming thru Warren river flood waters at the height of the New England storm to save two women" and "Elinor Imogene Randolph ... for saving a nine-year-old girl from drowning" ProQuest 2003022916. The Carnegie hero fund rewards good societal behavior but it doesn't confer notability, as the 26 acts of valor recognized that day each did not receive enduring coverage, if even recognized in their local papers. No such sourcing exists for this subject, nor do any suitable redirect targets. WP:BLP1E. czar 16:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Tenuous notability at best. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep Talk 15:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable lawyer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 15:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was keep. Going with the keeps here - appears to be getting lasting, international coverage. If you wish to propose merges, please do so at the appropriate article talk pages.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL , not WP:PERSISTENT, not WP:DIVERSE, one of many violent incidents of the conflict. Despite the place name in the title it is about the stabbing of a not WP:NOTABLE person. Coverage mainly on the day. Include in an appropriate list. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
According to the reliable HLSZ, none of his Hungarian games were at the professional level. Similarly, according to World Football, the 2 Swiss games were also below professional level. This leaves us with one game in Cyprus listed on Soccerway as the sole weak claim to notability. A Hungarian search failed to yield any non-database coverage and the best source found in Google searches was Sport Net, which is not even close to enough coverage for WP:GNG. Clear consensus that GNG takes priority over any SNG in marginal cases. There is also no evidence of an ongoing career as even MLSZ has nothing for him after 2012. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Bbb23 using WP:G5 (editor was a sockpuppet of User:Mr Deactler). (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Disclosed paid editing (after some encouragement). There are claims to notability present so, upon reflection, WP:A7 was probably inappropriate and was likely not actioned for that reason. The claim to notability here is that he has completed some major projects for the Government of Manipur but the sources do not support this. Searching "Kangjam Jibai Singh" brings back absolutely nothing. I also fail to see how Crediwatch is a valid source. I am willing to play with the idea maybe some sources exist in another language but my concern is that the creator, who has a disclosed close connection with the subject, has been unable to offer any. Currently, there are no reliable sources to support WP:BIO and this is currently a violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sammarinese Communist Party. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The only substantial edit in the history of this unsourced stub was the 2004 one that created it. It is briefly mentioned on Sammarinese Communist Party (where it does have one source). No merge required; there's nothing to add from this article to that one.
This article and the three that redirect to it should simply be turned into redirects to Sammarinese Communist Party. asilvering ( talk) 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This organization's notability seems to rest on some very brief mentions in a few news sources (e.g. BBC, Deutche World). I note that none of these articles have bylines, and they all seem to read like press-releases. There's no evidence that anybody other than the organisation themselves considers the Right Livelihood award to be an "Alternative Nobel Prize". The vast majority of sources on this article are inappropriate (e.g. YT, primary sources) which do little to establish any notability for this subject. Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:06, 23 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 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG the word only has passing mentions in books related to Swami Vivekananda where he criticized this Hindu doctrine Explained at Wikisource. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Notable? GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Japanese experimental rock band with questionable notability, in my opinion. The cited sources include many dead links and unreliable looking sites. While there is a biography page on Allmusic, it is a general consensus that AM does not necessarily establish notability. During a google search I couldn't find anything better either except a concert review in NYT which I find surprising. But even if Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source, we have two reliable sources but that's not much, and like I said I couldn't find anything else other than the usual stuff (databases, youtube, fansites, trivial mentions...) They don't have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia either. Offline sources might be available but I can't access them. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 05:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Cannot find enough evidence of notability. Written from fan’s POV, almost entirely consisting of references to YouTube videos. Part of a sequence of articles written with COI editors, all promoting Glitch Productions and their Youtube channel. Equine-man ( talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, this is OverDriver05, one of the main contributors to the SMG4 Wikipedia article, and i would like to appeal for the survivability of the page.
First off, SMG4 has been around since 2011, and its success leads to the creation of Glitch Productions, of which the series' creator, Luke Lerdwichagul, founded alongside his brother Kevin Lerdwichagul.
Second, Glitch Production currently produced SMG4, as well as the independent animation studios' other projects such as Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise, the latter being a direct spin-off to SMG4 as a whole. Also, those two shows are important as it includes characters that appeared in SMG4, either as a mainstay in the main cast (Meggy Spletzer and Tari) or a recurring character (Belle Fontiere).
Lastly, should the deletion of SMG4 became inevitable, you would have done yourself a complete disservice to its fanbase by removing the very page that connects Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise. After all, these three series are connected to one another in more ways than one!
I hope this would appeal to you and prevent this page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverDriver05 ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a Rwandan banker who dos not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources mentioned contribute towards notability: the first is the website of a board she is serving on; the remaining sources simply mention the subject without discussing her in detail. I failed to find significant coverage in my search for sources on Google, which turned up only a few sources all mentioning her name. The subject thus fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage. Java Hurricane 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete like nominator. Leomk0403 ( talk) 08:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his entire career being limited to 2 football games. Geschichte ( talk) 10:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per the due diligence of the participants.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOKS. None of the claims in the article can be verified. Doing WP:BEFORE, did not find any source that passes WP:GNG. Only passing mention in couple of astrology book that are WP:FRINGE theory and hence unreliable for assessing notability. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL ( talk) 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Keeping based on the cases presented below - sources appear to help the subject pass WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
A newly opened college wants a promotion. Does not pass WP:NORG / WP:GNG, lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Based on No original research. DMySon ( talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. —ScottyWong— 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable energy drink brand, unsourced. It gets a few passing mentions in New Zealand news, but no significant coverage. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep - I've added more material from NZ media about its advertising and food safety record. This combined with the existing material is enough to meet GNG. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 02:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources therefore fails WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Subject fail WP:NCORP and GNG for all the sources in the article are either no independent or reliable (not indepdent as interivew articles, passing mentioned as the sources main forcal either in the other promotions or fighters and not the subject or the sources are not reliable) except one source by CNN - see here but the source only mentioned about the subject in one sentence.
To meet the notability guidelines the we need significant coverage by independent, reliable source whereby the sources need to talk about the subject in length and inadept and not passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 02:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable former porn performer. 3 sentences in a rolling stone article about something else does not count towards notability and the rest of the coverage is LOCAL ONEEVENT stuff around her tragic death in a hit an run. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Last Afd was 13 years ago. Fails WP:NFILM. Note that it featured at the Kansai International Film Festival which is up for deletion. The film maker actually is the founder of this film festival. LibStar ( talk) 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colchester#Culture. I like the merge option for this one - the sourcing didn't quite lead me to believe this subject is independently notable outside the region in which it serves.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Gnews comes up with hits merely confirming films that have featured. LibStar ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:06, 23 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 08:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:AFD is rarely used for clean up - please discuss on talk page, reach out to Russian speakers or Cyrillic readers, and improve!
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is largely written in Cyrillic with interspersed translation for maybe half the text. It has been in that state for 15+ years. I would be happy if someone where willing (and better able than me) to make this a useful overview of the topic. But, failing that, it is simply not adequate for public consumption. K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. It essentially reproduces a list created by a consulting firm, that no one has really written about or noticed. JBchrch talk 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those "List of X of Y" lists for which we have no notability criteria. My arguments for deletion are the following: 1. this is functionally a category, not a list suited for the mainspace; 2. there is no possible way this list will ever be exhaustive at any point in the future; 3. imagine if we had a List of motorcycles and scooters with an internal combustion engine: this would not make sense, would it? JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
All sources in article are of dubious reliability, and a brief WP:BEFORE search did not find any better sources to establish verifiability or notability. ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the good faith efforts presented here, I'm not convinced this artist meets our inclusion guidelines at this time. Perhaps in the future.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This article do not contain any citations and I can find no reliable sources online. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has been tagged for attention since 2015 with no improvements WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, recent participation is trending increasingly towards keeping the article as substantially improved over the course of the discussion. BD2412 T 07:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Fancruft. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:BIO. This has been draftified before so my doing that again would be move warring.
References are both WP:BOMBARD and contain many primary sources. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Panama City. ✗ plicit 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced. I could not find anything in gnews for either name. LibStar ( talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:29, 15 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
03:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 10:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. We have standard financial reporting and a snippet of a recommendation to initiate legal action but which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and probably WP:ILLCON as well. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The references in the article do not meet the threshold for WP:GNG since there aren't multiple examples of signifiant coverage in reliabel third-party sources. (My BEFORE search didn't unearth anything of that variety either.) I don't see how any of the criteria at WP:BAND apply to them. The subject seems to be non-notable. Modussiccandi ( talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable academic. Of the five cited sources, two are brief mentions in versions of a list, two are about a politician who Azim may have treated (the articles don't mention him), and one is a newspaper article written by him. Searches of the usual types found pages published by him and his employers, [33] [34] but no significant coverage in independent sources.
Turning to the criteria of WP:PROF, his selected articles are in obscure journals with little impact. I can find no citations of his work. He is a fellow of the Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons, but in contrast to the IEEE (the example used in criterion #3), where fellows must be nominated by others and no more than one in one thousand may be selected per year, one obtains fellowship in the BCPS not by election, but by passing an exam, and about two-thirds of the total membership are fellows. [35] Fellowship in BCPS is not reserved as a highly selective honor. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ping me if you need salting.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMEDIA; written like an advertisement; some sources are press releases. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Trusting the good faith work of our astronomy Wikipedians! Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, the article should be rid of. It’s just an ordinary red dwarf that’s close to Earth. Fails WP:NASTRO due to its faintness, and lack of unique properties. 400Weir ( talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it is effectively a whitepaper and it is entirely unencyclopeadic. Unless whitepapers are acceptable articles. It takes a position, then tries to prove it. For example The European Green Deal is a plan so it's set in the future, again similar to a white paper, setting out a position. As it doesn't read correctly, it would need a fairly drastic rewrite, if it was acceptable. The only section that is in the present, is the History of adoption, but even that strays. scope_creep Talk 12:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep I recently wondered aloud if we had an article on green steel. Reducing the emissions of the steel industry is one of the most difficult issues in climate change mitigation, both for technical reasons and because writing good policy is hard: Jurisdictions often don't want to apply carbon taxes to the steel industry because it would make their domestic steel production less competitive internationally. This article is about how an industry is changing, mostly in response to a policy initiative. Whether this policy initiative is a "plan" is irrelevant - the policy is already having an effect by sending signals to markets. We need a hell of a lot more articles that illuminate how climate policy works, not fewer articles. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
That seems to be a call to action, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. They're is no theory on here and there is no planning being done. It has no place on Wikipedia. Words or phrases like norms, sanctioned, plan to achieve are indicative of somebody who writes whitepapers. They are not wikipedia language. I used to write whitepapers, so I recognised it immediately. I would suggest rewriting it, so it meet the Heymann standard. scope_creep Talk 18:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Going with the keeps here - clean up clean up clean up
We're happy to welcome the article back to AfD if these newly found citations and cleanup efforts don't pan out.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
10+ years of being tagged with notability and advertising issues; no evidence it meets WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE fails to find anything other than press releases and business-as-usual entries. Acquired a while ago by Software AG which makes for a valid redirect target. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:21, 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)
02:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Going with the redirect as an WP:ATD. I am not convinced the the subject meets WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:59, 30 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 1-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, in a non-division I conference, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space.
Spf121188 (
talk)
18:45, 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)
02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. —ScottyWong— 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A grain elevator sitting by itself with a faint line running diagonally across the fields: yes, it's another Milwaukee Road station, the end of the same branch line that served Packard, in fact. You can even see the traces of the turning wye just southeast of the elevator. What you won't see is any traces of a town. Mangoe ( talk) 01:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Numerically, it's 11 to 7 in favor of a redirect, a clear majority but not on its face clear consensus. In terms of arguments, the question is whether this has enough sustained, substantial coverage to escape the one-event clause. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which means I can't discount either side's views, and so we have no consensus at this time. Sandstein 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Content fork duplicating the text of Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, but divorced from due context. Feoffer ( talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
[a topic being notable] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is inherently grouped together by being a single brief episode in a mass violence event. Imagine a medieval battle in which a ruler was killed. How incredibly notable, right? But we don't have a Killing of Murad I article or a Killing of Richard III of England article. WP:10YEARTEST. It's true that Death of Brian Sicknick is a separate article, but that happened on a different day, and has a convoluted media aftermath that can't fit anywhere else but in a separate page. There's no such thing here, and this event-within-an-event is best covered in appropriate context. I tried editing this article to improve it but see no point after a while. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.Now, no one is arguing here to create an Ashli Babbitt; the argument being made here is WP:WEIGHT:
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.I contend that this event-within-an-event was a significant one, and, just to rehash what I said above, it is doing a good job right now being a repository for all the added information. StonyBrook ( talk) 08:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: ... those that are logically fallacious ...). Hypothetically it could have been that there was substantive contention around what the controlling policy was, but majorly, the keep side's argument did not reflect on WP:N itself saying:
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.Indeed, the redirect side itself cited this guideline. So this is not really a split in the community about what the controlling policy should be (it's just a classic strawman...). In the past discussions cited above by Adolphus79, this was generally seen as a content organization problem resolved through merger/redirect, reinforcing that the community at large has recognized that this is how this content should be treated, and which considerations are the most important. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Unremarkable local tobacco company, appears to fail WP:CORP/ WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage that I can find is this article ( archive), but it's local, short, and reads very much like routine coverage. Apart from some reviews and mentions in tobacco-specific media, there doesn't seem to be anything else. Lennart97 ( talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by “local” - their blends are found in the USA, UK, and even China. - Size is relative here. Pipe tobacco is a very niche product, with a handful of companies left. Dunhill got out of the business recently and Peterson is now carrying their classic blends. Sutiliff and MacBaren are still around. McClelland went out of business 3 years ago or so. - In https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/15/cornell-diehl, you can see over 300 blends they produce, compared to Peterson’s 80 ( https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/45/peterson), for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfernand ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) (copied/pasted from the article's talk page by Lennart97 ( talk) 09:28, 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)
01:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Multiple reviews of the work were found during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 04:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not managed to find a single substantial review, and so it likely fails WP:NBOOK. — kashmīrī TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a notable event. Unable to find more than routine coverage, doesn't meet the standard of the notability guideline or GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. AmbergGuy ( talk) 23:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
"This article is basically entailed by Outline of Islam and List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran#Supernatural. Since Islam has no official categorizition of super natural creatures, this article is always a sort of original research and depends on the opinnion of the editors (for example the exact nature of jinn). Sources given here, usually do not support the idea of the article, rather they are copied including the sentences they are citing from other articles. The jinn, angels and so on, are all copied from their corresponding main-article's lead section." AmbergGuy ( talk) 01:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. "Withdrawn by nominator" (non-admin closure) BilCat ( talk) 20:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Single source appears to be self-published, no evidence of notability. BilCat ( talk) 01:01, 23 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 08:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Another Milwaukee Road station featuring a grain elevator which still exists in a much mutated form, operated by HighLine Grain Growers Inc. and standing in grand isolation because the tracks have been gone for decades. No evidence I could find of any adjacent town. Mangoe ( talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Henri Betti#Works as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NSONG. Give me more sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A meticulously, thoroughly researched article, but no indication of why she is notable after all. It looks as if all references here are just passing mentions, and looking for other sources didn't present me with anything better. Her roles are either very minor, or in very minor productions. Perhaps I missed the few sources here which are really about her instead of just mentioning her: in that case, please indicate here which reliable, independent sources give the necessary significant attention. Fram ( talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for activists. The notability claim here is that he was involved in a group, but the potential notability of the group is not necessarily an instant notability freebie for every individual member of it -- in order to establish him as notable, there have to be reliable sources about him and his work. But there are none here, and the article was created by an editor whose username strongly suggests that they're a relative of the subject (which is a conflict of interest). As I don't have access to any database in which I could recover American newspaper coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better resources can actually improve the sourcing, but nothing stated in the text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have his notability established through media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This page appears to be promotional in nature. It was created in 2017 by an account named MimicT, which suggests a close association to the original researcher, Jianxing Wu. The text praises Wu's cybersecurity theories uncritically and compares them favorably to prior approaches. There are several citations, but they all trace back directly to Jiangxing Wu.
Wu has written an academic book on this subject, so presumably there is some kernel of scholarship to all this. However, the text is written in what appears to be a deliberately obfuscatory style reminiscent of the Sokal affair. I am not a computer security researcher, but I'm a software professional and the co-author of a series of books about system administration, and most of this article reads as gobbledygook to me. It's hard to avoid the impression that Wu set up this page in a bid for academic credentialling. NillaGoon ( talk) 22:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Insufficient secondary sources to show that this subject meets our notability criteria. Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Agreeing with the nominator and the one participant.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
An inappropriately cited article that fails to show that this subject has significant notability within the field of astrology. Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. I concur regarding failure to meet WP:NORG and WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. There are a few interviews and mentions on Google News search but I was not able to find the independent, in depth coverage required for NORG. ( t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per nom and participants: fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable company. Neither of the cited sources, nor any others I could find, provided significant coverage in independent sources. ( t · c) buidhe 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Concur that this event is not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON and maybe a dash of WP:CRYSTAL.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable future event, does not meet WP:NEVENT yet. The only independent coverage I found is https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/all-out-election-called-wigan-16909874 ( t · c) buidhe 21:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack). Per comments - merge away anything of value and redirect.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirect these three songs to The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack), and merge text as appropriate. These three songs fail WP:NSONGS because they are all mentioned in the context of the album. None of them have gained significant in-depth coverage on their own. The album article has very little prose; it should be fleshed out with text merged from the song articles. Binksternet ( talk) 20:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge Could be a subsection in the article about the soundtrack itself, the song alone isn't notable; you put the three of them mentioned above in sections in the soundtrack article, I think you'd have a rather good collection of information. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Convinced that this team isn't eligible for an article at this time.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Amateur Rugby team in the village of Bilambil, New South Wales (Population 500). Given that about 12% of Australians are males aged 12-35%, they would have about 50 available players to staff their teams to play against the other villages/small towns in the region. No notable achievements or indept sources Bumbubookworm ( talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Convinced by the arguments presented below - film is in progress and coverage is flowing.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, the film has not even been confirmed its release date, just saying 2022.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 14:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
19:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus established that GNG is not met and it also seems that any claim to passing NFOOTY is also rebutted, whilst the player may have made preliminary squad, the is no evidence that they featured in a full international match. Fenix down ( talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY as France doesn't have any women's professional leagues. The only article I can find on her is this, which is hidden behind a paywall. I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Nehme 1499 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
multiple sources are generally expected. Nehme 1499 12:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After three relistings and extensive discussion, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired in this discussion. North America 1000 11:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds previously without prejudice against being nominated again on its own. In my view, Van Raay and Louise van Oosten (already up for AfD) were the only players from that previous discussion that do not demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG. I believe that this article should be deleted because it's based on a teenager with no claim to significance who is not in the public eye at all. A Google News search yields only passing mentions in match reports, most of which are from ADO Den Haag's own website, an unacceptable source when it comes to establishing notability. A Dutch source search similarly comes up with very little. AD has one article which looks like it's more than a passing mention but, when you look at it closely, it's almost entirely just a long direct quote from her and contains very little input from a third party. GNG requires multiple sources.
Please can anyone arguing for 'keep' please provide WP:THREE sources addressing Van Raay directly and in depth? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some degree of coverage. Editors are reminded that articles produced on a player by the player's employer, I.e. their club are not considered to be independent but are essentially
WP:PRIMARY. This currently leaves us with two sources of reasonable length. Close but probably not
close enough yet to say keep votes have presented strong enough arguments to create a valid consensus. Definitely scope for further discussion though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
20:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.Interviews are primary sources according to policy (which is reinforced at WP:PRIMARYNEWS), although historically if the interviewer provides significant analysis or background on the subject using info not derived from the interview, such a source may contribute to notability. In this case that's irrelevant since none of the refs contain such secondary commentary. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Examples
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus. Not sure if we will achieve one here this time but no harm in extending for a final week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Option Canada (political party). Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a former leader of a fringe political party with no legislative representation during his leadership (or at any other time in Canadian history). To be fair, the article was first created at a time when that was accepted as an "inherent" notability claim that guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia -- but our inclusion criteria have long since been tightened up, and no longer confer an automatic notability freebie on fringe political party leaders in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage. But apart from three primary source footnotes that aren't support for notability at all (a YouTube video, his own LinkedIn and the self-published org chart of his own post-political employer), this is otherwise "referenced" to citations of the "name of newspaper and date but no title of any actual piece of content in said newspaper on said date, parenthetically inserted directly into body text rather than being embedded inside reference tags" variety -- and after doing a ProQuest search to investigate what those sources were, I only found glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and a small smattering of purely run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, with absolutely no evidence of coverage that was substantively about him for the purposes of building notability. So again, this was fine by the standards of the time when it was created -- but by the standards of 2021, he doesn't have any notability claim strong enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 19:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG WP:ACTOR, etc, at this time.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is about an actress that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Perhaps a case of too soon for an article on Wikipedia. The article has been partially hidden as a potential copyright violation as the text is a rewording, at leat in parts, of the IMDB biography submitted by the actor herself, under the name Mercedes Gendron. My search for reliable sourcing under "Mercedes Gendron" turned up little. Searching under "Mercedes De La Cruz" turns up much more resultsm], but they are interviews, announcements, and insubstantial coverage. The sourcing in the article is the same sort of stuff. At the time of nomination, there are 6 sources.
She has had some roles in made for TV movies. But these are note really notable films. Other roles mentioned seemed to be worded to appear more substantial than they really are. For example, She had a role in "The WB's Supernatural opposite Jared Padalecki". A check with IMDB credits shows that she has been on two episodes. Once as "Porn Star 6", and another time as "Rabid #1". Whpq ( talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Subject fails WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails notability guideline WP:N Victmich ( talk) 17:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The same day that the subject received a heroism medal, so did "schoolboy Richard W. Holmes ... for swimming thru Warren river flood waters at the height of the New England storm to save two women" and "Elinor Imogene Randolph ... for saving a nine-year-old girl from drowning" ProQuest 2003022916. The Carnegie hero fund rewards good societal behavior but it doesn't confer notability, as the 26 acts of valor recognized that day each did not receive enduring coverage, if even recognized in their local papers. No such sourcing exists for this subject, nor do any suitable redirect targets. WP:BLP1E. czar 16:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Tenuous notability at best. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep Talk 15:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable lawyer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 15:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result was keep. Going with the keeps here - appears to be getting lasting, international coverage. If you wish to propose merges, please do so at the appropriate article talk pages.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL , not WP:PERSISTENT, not WP:DIVERSE, one of many violent incidents of the conflict. Despite the place name in the title it is about the stabbing of a not WP:NOTABLE person. Coverage mainly on the day. Include in an appropriate list. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
According to the reliable HLSZ, none of his Hungarian games were at the professional level. Similarly, according to World Football, the 2 Swiss games were also below professional level. This leaves us with one game in Cyprus listed on Soccerway as the sole weak claim to notability. A Hungarian search failed to yield any non-database coverage and the best source found in Google searches was Sport Net, which is not even close to enough coverage for WP:GNG. Clear consensus that GNG takes priority over any SNG in marginal cases. There is also no evidence of an ongoing career as even MLSZ has nothing for him after 2012. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Bbb23 using WP:G5 (editor was a sockpuppet of User:Mr Deactler). (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Disclosed paid editing (after some encouragement). There are claims to notability present so, upon reflection, WP:A7 was probably inappropriate and was likely not actioned for that reason. The claim to notability here is that he has completed some major projects for the Government of Manipur but the sources do not support this. Searching "Kangjam Jibai Singh" brings back absolutely nothing. I also fail to see how Crediwatch is a valid source. I am willing to play with the idea maybe some sources exist in another language but my concern is that the creator, who has a disclosed close connection with the subject, has been unable to offer any. Currently, there are no reliable sources to support WP:BIO and this is currently a violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sammarinese Communist Party. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The only substantial edit in the history of this unsourced stub was the 2004 one that created it. It is briefly mentioned on Sammarinese Communist Party (where it does have one source). No merge required; there's nothing to add from this article to that one.
This article and the three that redirect to it should simply be turned into redirects to Sammarinese Communist Party. asilvering ( talk) 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This organization's notability seems to rest on some very brief mentions in a few news sources (e.g. BBC, Deutche World). I note that none of these articles have bylines, and they all seem to read like press-releases. There's no evidence that anybody other than the organisation themselves considers the Right Livelihood award to be an "Alternative Nobel Prize". The vast majority of sources on this article are inappropriate (e.g. YT, primary sources) which do little to establish any notability for this subject. Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:06, 23 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 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG the word only has passing mentions in books related to Swami Vivekananda where he criticized this Hindu doctrine Explained at Wikisource. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Notable? GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Japanese experimental rock band with questionable notability, in my opinion. The cited sources include many dead links and unreliable looking sites. While there is a biography page on Allmusic, it is a general consensus that AM does not necessarily establish notability. During a google search I couldn't find anything better either except a concert review in NYT which I find surprising. But even if Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source, we have two reliable sources but that's not much, and like I said I couldn't find anything else other than the usual stuff (databases, youtube, fansites, trivial mentions...) They don't have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia either. Offline sources might be available but I can't access them. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 05:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Cannot find enough evidence of notability. Written from fan’s POV, almost entirely consisting of references to YouTube videos. Part of a sequence of articles written with COI editors, all promoting Glitch Productions and their Youtube channel. Equine-man ( talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, this is OverDriver05, one of the main contributors to the SMG4 Wikipedia article, and i would like to appeal for the survivability of the page.
First off, SMG4 has been around since 2011, and its success leads to the creation of Glitch Productions, of which the series' creator, Luke Lerdwichagul, founded alongside his brother Kevin Lerdwichagul.
Second, Glitch Production currently produced SMG4, as well as the independent animation studios' other projects such as Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise, the latter being a direct spin-off to SMG4 as a whole. Also, those two shows are important as it includes characters that appeared in SMG4, either as a mainstay in the main cast (Meggy Spletzer and Tari) or a recurring character (Belle Fontiere).
Lastly, should the deletion of SMG4 became inevitable, you would have done yourself a complete disservice to its fanbase by removing the very page that connects Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise. After all, these three series are connected to one another in more ways than one!
I hope this would appeal to you and prevent this page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverDriver05 ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a Rwandan banker who dos not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources mentioned contribute towards notability: the first is the website of a board she is serving on; the remaining sources simply mention the subject without discussing her in detail. I failed to find significant coverage in my search for sources on Google, which turned up only a few sources all mentioning her name. The subject thus fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage. Java Hurricane 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete like nominator. Leomk0403 ( talk) 08:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his entire career being limited to 2 football games. Geschichte ( talk) 10:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per the due diligence of the participants.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOKS. None of the claims in the article can be verified. Doing WP:BEFORE, did not find any source that passes WP:GNG. Only passing mention in couple of astrology book that are WP:FRINGE theory and hence unreliable for assessing notability. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL ( talk) 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Keeping based on the cases presented below - sources appear to help the subject pass WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
A newly opened college wants a promotion. Does not pass WP:NORG / WP:GNG, lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Based on No original research. DMySon ( talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. —ScottyWong— 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable energy drink brand, unsourced. It gets a few passing mentions in New Zealand news, but no significant coverage. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep - I've added more material from NZ media about its advertising and food safety record. This combined with the existing material is enough to meet GNG. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 02:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources therefore fails WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Subject fail WP:NCORP and GNG for all the sources in the article are either no independent or reliable (not indepdent as interivew articles, passing mentioned as the sources main forcal either in the other promotions or fighters and not the subject or the sources are not reliable) except one source by CNN - see here but the source only mentioned about the subject in one sentence.
To meet the notability guidelines the we need significant coverage by independent, reliable source whereby the sources need to talk about the subject in length and inadept and not passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 02:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable former porn performer. 3 sentences in a rolling stone article about something else does not count towards notability and the rest of the coverage is LOCAL ONEEVENT stuff around her tragic death in a hit an run. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Last Afd was 13 years ago. Fails WP:NFILM. Note that it featured at the Kansai International Film Festival which is up for deletion. The film maker actually is the founder of this film festival. LibStar ( talk) 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colchester#Culture. I like the merge option for this one - the sourcing didn't quite lead me to believe this subject is independently notable outside the region in which it serves.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Gnews comes up with hits merely confirming films that have featured. LibStar ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:06, 23 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 08:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:AFD is rarely used for clean up - please discuss on talk page, reach out to Russian speakers or Cyrillic readers, and improve!
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is largely written in Cyrillic with interspersed translation for maybe half the text. It has been in that state for 15+ years. I would be happy if someone where willing (and better able than me) to make this a useful overview of the topic. But, failing that, it is simply not adequate for public consumption. K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. It essentially reproduces a list created by a consulting firm, that no one has really written about or noticed. JBchrch talk 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those "List of X of Y" lists for which we have no notability criteria. My arguments for deletion are the following: 1. this is functionally a category, not a list suited for the mainspace; 2. there is no possible way this list will ever be exhaustive at any point in the future; 3. imagine if we had a List of motorcycles and scooters with an internal combustion engine: this would not make sense, would it? JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
All sources in article are of dubious reliability, and a brief WP:BEFORE search did not find any better sources to establish verifiability or notability. ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the good faith efforts presented here, I'm not convinced this artist meets our inclusion guidelines at this time. Perhaps in the future.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This article do not contain any citations and I can find no reliable sources online. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has been tagged for attention since 2015 with no improvements WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, recent participation is trending increasingly towards keeping the article as substantially improved over the course of the discussion. BD2412 T 07:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Fancruft. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:BIO. This has been draftified before so my doing that again would be move warring.
References are both WP:BOMBARD and contain many primary sources. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Panama City. ✗ plicit 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced. I could not find anything in gnews for either name. LibStar ( talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:29, 15 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
03:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 10:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. We have standard financial reporting and a snippet of a recommendation to initiate legal action but which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and probably WP:ILLCON as well. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The references in the article do not meet the threshold for WP:GNG since there aren't multiple examples of signifiant coverage in reliabel third-party sources. (My BEFORE search didn't unearth anything of that variety either.) I don't see how any of the criteria at WP:BAND apply to them. The subject seems to be non-notable. Modussiccandi ( talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable academic. Of the five cited sources, two are brief mentions in versions of a list, two are about a politician who Azim may have treated (the articles don't mention him), and one is a newspaper article written by him. Searches of the usual types found pages published by him and his employers, [33] [34] but no significant coverage in independent sources.
Turning to the criteria of WP:PROF, his selected articles are in obscure journals with little impact. I can find no citations of his work. He is a fellow of the Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons, but in contrast to the IEEE (the example used in criterion #3), where fellows must be nominated by others and no more than one in one thousand may be selected per year, one obtains fellowship in the BCPS not by election, but by passing an exam, and about two-thirds of the total membership are fellows. [35] Fellowship in BCPS is not reserved as a highly selective honor. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ping me if you need salting.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMEDIA; written like an advertisement; some sources are press releases. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Trusting the good faith work of our astronomy Wikipedians! Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, the article should be rid of. It’s just an ordinary red dwarf that’s close to Earth. Fails WP:NASTRO due to its faintness, and lack of unique properties. 400Weir ( talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it is effectively a whitepaper and it is entirely unencyclopeadic. Unless whitepapers are acceptable articles. It takes a position, then tries to prove it. For example The European Green Deal is a plan so it's set in the future, again similar to a white paper, setting out a position. As it doesn't read correctly, it would need a fairly drastic rewrite, if it was acceptable. The only section that is in the present, is the History of adoption, but even that strays. scope_creep Talk 12:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep I recently wondered aloud if we had an article on green steel. Reducing the emissions of the steel industry is one of the most difficult issues in climate change mitigation, both for technical reasons and because writing good policy is hard: Jurisdictions often don't want to apply carbon taxes to the steel industry because it would make their domestic steel production less competitive internationally. This article is about how an industry is changing, mostly in response to a policy initiative. Whether this policy initiative is a "plan" is irrelevant - the policy is already having an effect by sending signals to markets. We need a hell of a lot more articles that illuminate how climate policy works, not fewer articles. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
That seems to be a call to action, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. They're is no theory on here and there is no planning being done. It has no place on Wikipedia. Words or phrases like norms, sanctioned, plan to achieve are indicative of somebody who writes whitepapers. They are not wikipedia language. I used to write whitepapers, so I recognised it immediately. I would suggest rewriting it, so it meet the Heymann standard. scope_creep Talk 18:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Going with the keeps here - clean up clean up clean up
We're happy to welcome the article back to AfD if these newly found citations and cleanup efforts don't pan out.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
10+ years of being tagged with notability and advertising issues; no evidence it meets WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE fails to find anything other than press releases and business-as-usual entries. Acquired a while ago by Software AG which makes for a valid redirect target. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:21, 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)
02:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Going with the redirect as an WP:ATD. I am not convinced the the subject meets WP:GNG.
Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 23:59, 30 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 1-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, in a non-division I conference, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space.
Spf121188 (
talk)
18:45, 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)
02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. —ScottyWong— 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A grain elevator sitting by itself with a faint line running diagonally across the fields: yes, it's another Milwaukee Road station, the end of the same branch line that served Packard, in fact. You can even see the traces of the turning wye just southeast of the elevator. What you won't see is any traces of a town. Mangoe ( talk) 01:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Numerically, it's 11 to 7 in favor of a redirect, a clear majority but not on its face clear consensus. In terms of arguments, the question is whether this has enough sustained, substantial coverage to escape the one-event clause. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which means I can't discount either side's views, and so we have no consensus at this time. Sandstein 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Content fork duplicating the text of Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, but divorced from due context. Feoffer ( talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
[a topic being notable] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is inherently grouped together by being a single brief episode in a mass violence event. Imagine a medieval battle in which a ruler was killed. How incredibly notable, right? But we don't have a Killing of Murad I article or a Killing of Richard III of England article. WP:10YEARTEST. It's true that Death of Brian Sicknick is a separate article, but that happened on a different day, and has a convoluted media aftermath that can't fit anywhere else but in a separate page. There's no such thing here, and this event-within-an-event is best covered in appropriate context. I tried editing this article to improve it but see no point after a while. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.Now, no one is arguing here to create an Ashli Babbitt; the argument being made here is WP:WEIGHT:
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.I contend that this event-within-an-event was a significant one, and, just to rehash what I said above, it is doing a good job right now being a repository for all the added information. StonyBrook ( talk) 08:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: ... those that are logically fallacious ...). Hypothetically it could have been that there was substantive contention around what the controlling policy was, but majorly, the keep side's argument did not reflect on WP:N itself saying:
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.Indeed, the redirect side itself cited this guideline. So this is not really a split in the community about what the controlling policy should be (it's just a classic strawman...). In the past discussions cited above by Adolphus79, this was generally seen as a content organization problem resolved through merger/redirect, reinforcing that the community at large has recognized that this is how this content should be treated, and which considerations are the most important. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Unremarkable local tobacco company, appears to fail WP:CORP/ WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage that I can find is this article ( archive), but it's local, short, and reads very much like routine coverage. Apart from some reviews and mentions in tobacco-specific media, there doesn't seem to be anything else. Lennart97 ( talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by “local” - their blends are found in the USA, UK, and even China. - Size is relative here. Pipe tobacco is a very niche product, with a handful of companies left. Dunhill got out of the business recently and Peterson is now carrying their classic blends. Sutiliff and MacBaren are still around. McClelland went out of business 3 years ago or so. - In https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/15/cornell-diehl, you can see over 300 blends they produce, compared to Peterson’s 80 ( https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/45/peterson), for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfernand ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) (copied/pasted from the article's talk page by Lennart97 ( talk) 09:28, 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)
01:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Multiple reviews of the work were found during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 04:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not managed to find a single substantial review, and so it likely fails WP:NBOOK. — kashmīrī TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a notable event. Unable to find more than routine coverage, doesn't meet the standard of the notability guideline or GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. AmbergGuy ( talk) 23:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
"This article is basically entailed by Outline of Islam and List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran#Supernatural. Since Islam has no official categorizition of super natural creatures, this article is always a sort of original research and depends on the opinnion of the editors (for example the exact nature of jinn). Sources given here, usually do not support the idea of the article, rather they are copied including the sentences they are citing from other articles. The jinn, angels and so on, are all copied from their corresponding main-article's lead section." AmbergGuy ( talk) 01:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. "Withdrawn by nominator" (non-admin closure) BilCat ( talk) 20:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Single source appears to be self-published, no evidence of notability. BilCat ( talk) 01:01, 23 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 08:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Another Milwaukee Road station featuring a grain elevator which still exists in a much mutated form, operated by HighLine Grain Growers Inc. and standing in grand isolation because the tracks have been gone for decades. No evidence I could find of any adjacent town. Mangoe ( talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Henri Betti#Works as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NSONG. Give me more sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)