The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 03:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. There is not much to these relations except a one off meetings of leaders, and a bit of aid. No embassies or agreements. Trade is negligible. LibStar ( talk) 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP/ WP:CORPDEPTH. Not a lot of coverage located on a search - mostly business listings and one source that appeared promising until I realized it was a novel.
It's also important to be aware of false positives. According to this article, the company didn't rebrand as Diversicom until 1999, so any sources about Diversicom before that are not applicable to this company. I was not able to find any significant coverage of it as "Melrose Telephone Company" either. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable local city newspaper. Article doesn't cite any sources. SkippyKR ( talk) 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:58, 7 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. Daniel ( talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Basically only a single meaningful source. That she got fined for missing scenes. Otherwise the usual poor referencing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2020-12 ✍️ create
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. Lack of indepth third party coverage of her. Gnews merely confirms she held a position at Constitutional & Law Reform Commission but nothing indepth. LibStar ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:48, 7 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 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to these relations except a one off meeting of leaders. Even the Turkish Foreign ministry site says little of relations. The excessively long further reading list contains no title including Turkey. LibStar ( talk) 23:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
PRODded per WP:DICDEF, then deprodded by recently topic-banned Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) without explanation. Just a dictionary definition without any encyclopedic information. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiktionary no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia, and so is not an alternative to deletion.As a result, I would support deletion of a non-notable phrase that fails WP:DICDEF. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Article seems to be almost entirely sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, agreements, state visits or migration. Even the article states "Mauritius is not a priority or preferential country within the Master Plan of Spanish cooperation" LibStar ( talk) 23:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
No proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Deprodded without explanation, although the original PROD rationale (Duplicates existing articles:
List_of_largest_cities,
List_of_largest_cities_by_area,
List_of_countries_by_largest_and_second_largest_cities
) was a bit off. My concern is that the article fails
WP:LISTN,
WP:NOTSTATS, and
WP:OR: All the data are unreferenced, and the only two references are in the lead about the term
megalopolis. Worse yet, the creator claimed that all the data came from other Wikipedia articles. I could foresee a
List of megalopolises that has better sourcing than the one in the Megalopolis article, but not this. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
23:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the walls of text produced by those wishing to keep, no clear evidence of notability has been presented. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This living person is not notable, and many of the sources cited are unreliable and/or self-published. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith ( talk) 22:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Before I removed them, there were many other sources which were blatant literal press releases from Zeickner - see the talk page of the article for my explanation on that. The article has existed for half a year now, so there has been time to add sources if they existed. It was initially created by an apparent corporate account, and has been facing huge amounts of edit warring when editors point out the problems with the article. I think most of the publicity around this artist is simple astroturfing - he isn't signed to a label according to his YouTube, and has very little engagement on his social media platforms for someone who apparently gets this much press.
The part about the Benin bronzes is the only real verifiable, notable thing there, and I don't think that section alone warrants Zeickner a whole article. -- HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith ( talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
It would only be re-added if it gets deleted.That's not how deletion works. If it gets deleted and an account starts trying to recreate it, they'll just get blocked and the article salted. -- HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith ( talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but its extremely ignorant of you to say the news concerning the Benin bronzes doesnt make him notable. People have done less with articles on wikipedia, dont let arrogance belittle your credibility as an editor.
RE: Actually I think you better read the policy. The articles arent just about the event, and his notability is not based on the unveiling itself but the thing which was unveiled. This is starting to get ridiculous and seem like you have an agenda at play for the baseless arguments. Sorry for using the term 'arrogant' because it seems you just want to win an argument falsely rather than respect wikipedia's policies. Also its rich of you claiming personal attack when you're the one attacking my page, and linking someone else's twitter account on my talk page. @ User:MrsSnoozyTurtle Can you chip in here? It is 100% false to cite WP:BLP1E to refer to this article about a living person being based on an event when the subject matter's notability is not for the event. The event took place BECAUSE of the notability of the work, and there are loads of news coverage and stories which arent even about the event. He is credited for the creation of the work not the unveiling of it. I agree with the original edits you made but not this false deletion discussion. @ User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Please accept that arguments against this notability is totally invalid. Actually as it stands, not a single issue persists in the article from the problems originally flagged about his music career which are gone from the article. So what exactly is the discussion about?
Personally I am removing the original message template from the article which is refers to issues that are no longer present on the article. Kindly verify @ User:MrsSnoozyTurtle
You also put blatantly false information such as saying contributor has close links to the artist which is not true and baseless.
RE: User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Sorry, I'v tagged the original person now.
Your only actual argument is that you personally dont think its notable
RE: I'm also one of the other editors here and I dont agree with you. Also no other editor has agreed with you concerning the Benin bronzes not being notable because you wrongly claimed it was as single event warranting the article which is blatantly false.
You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion"...
You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion" for a number of completely different people, so how can they self promoting multiple people?" This statement refers to the fact that you wrongly banned someone's IP based on what seemed to be an incorrect assumption. It is clear a 'self promoter' cannot be multiple people. This seems to be a case of the same IP being assigned to different people, which Wikipedia itself acknowledges is a common occurrence.
You complained about the name yet didnt bother to change it despite making loads of edits yourself, which seems a little petty from an editor's point of view.
RE: @ User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Like I said, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy against using a person's known professional name / stage name when its clear they're the same person.
WP:BLP1E refers to 'Events' not creations.
Also can you explain why you keep vandalising my signature? I'v contributed to loads of other articles but I happen to be spending more time than usual on defending this article since its my first article and you insist of needlessly fighting about it.
I editted it after I saw that you had posted that "no grounds for deletion" was incorrect and telling them to edit it to say "keep" instead for the vote to count? Sorry if it broke the rules you can undo the edit but its not like I was changing their vote or something. Yikes - User:Afrorocktv
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Claims this living person is not notable yet sources and internationally celebrated achievements says otherwise. Original arguments for nomination no longer stands as the all flagged sources were since removed. There are literally no unreliable sources on this article. Original sources she claimed were self published related to his music career and were removed. My bad.
signed by
User:Factsaboutnigeria Many people would seriously disagree with your statement that its not notable for wikipedia despite being notable for national and international news.
Dear Cody User:Clpo13 could you please review the discussion and assist in consensus? It appears the only reason for categorizing for deletion was WP:BLP1E which is not applicable. The items discussed in the article do meet WP:SIGCOV. I recommend the removal of tags on the article as they no longer apply to the article. Those voting for deletion are doing so against wikipedia policy with unjustified factors- signed by User:Factsaboutnigeria — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
_________
To all the editors User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, User:Afrorocktv, User:WaddlesJP13 Can we decide for good, I dont think it warrants such arguments. If you decide to delete it I will accept that if you believe it cant be improved further. If not, please make edits to improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaboutnigeria ( talk • contribs)
@ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: @ WaddlesJP13: Honestly this discussion is frustrating. I sincerely dont understand why you repeatedly refuse to correct yourself that this article is about a notable item and the notable person is its creator. Its not about the event itself which the sources confirm, you either didnt read them or for whatever reason falsely stated its referring just to an event. Either way I wont bother with this argument anymore. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia of world record title holders (single events) and notable people based on significant few or single accomplishments with 3 or 4 references. There are 14 high quality references here. The subject of the article is the creator of a notable work with all sources verifying that. No need to argue further, delete the article if you like. If more sources pop up I will add it later. Signed Factsaboutnigeria ( talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
"The creation of an object is an event" Could you please reference this definition in the policy? There's absolutely nowhere on wikipedia stating this.
Please read [ [1]] states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The event involved even the residing government. It is clear and obvious that the event is very notable and the subject's role was significant. The sources cover more than a single event (despite which the event is significant alone to justify the article). Mentioned in the sources is the plaque and its unveiling, the new Ahiamwen guild, and its relation to British Museum so I would say the subject is notable for more than one event. Please verify @ Clpo13: @ WaddlesJP13: @ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: @ MrsSnoozyTurtle: and vote fairly. I only think its interesting for it to be referenceable on Wikipedia Factsaboutnigeria ( talk)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
What is the need to make a disambiguation page for the "World's Greatest Detective"? Besides that mentioning those characters as the world's greatest detectives may be a bit POV, I doubt somebody would type the "world's greatest detective" on Wikipedia, making it an useless disambiguation page. Also, no article links it. --The Typos Checker ( fixed typos) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Police Camera Action! episodes#Series 2 (1996). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS - this, despite being a standalone article, is not a newsworthy event. Transplant organs are retrieved from source hospitals and taken to target hospitals every day in every country where transplant medicine is practiced. This one just happened to be picked up when the media were present. It is in no way a notable or newsworthy event, just something that happens every day. There might be some content that could be incorporated elsewhere but nothing jumps out at me. 10mmsocket ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Suspected hoax. While Chumbawamba did make a soundtrack for the film Revengers Tragedy, the song "Revengers Tragedy" does not appear on the soundtrack's track listing per a scan of the album's booklet or Musicbrainz. I do realize these aren't the greatest sources for verification. I was hoping to find this album on Itunes/Spotify so I can verify whether this song appears on the album, but no luck. If this ends up as a hoax, I request this put on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia as this was created in March 2010, over 11 years ago. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is consensus that an article is viable, though whether it should be a list rather than a prose piece is something for future discussions to decide. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a dictionary definition with few sources and a good chunk of original research; not much evidence of discussion as a general, standalone topic, as opposed to methods such as the Born–Haber cycle for predicting compounds. The only sources are one about a claimed observation of ethylene dione, and a book that discusses a lot of theoretical chemistry in the context of crystallography, but also does not discuss hypothetical compounds by themselves. Not every category needs a main article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Darmstadtium hexafluoride (DsF6) is predicted to have very similar properties to its lighter homologue platinum hexafluoride (PtF6), having very similar electronic structures and ionization potentials[3][66][67]"), Tennessine#Chemical, Oganesson#Predicted_compounds (including things as obvious as Og2!) Of course, all the things I'm mentioning here are thoroughly sourced (the predicted properties of tennessine chloride, for example, going to Pershina, V. (2010). "Electronic structure and chemistry of the heaviest elements". Relativistic Methods for Chemists. Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 10. pp. 451–520. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9975-5_11. ISBN 978-1-4020-9974-8.). jp× g 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge to Media Research Center. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America 1000 23:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP for a standalone article and should be merged into Media Research Center (MRC). This article is sourced with primary or non-RS sources: from its own website, from its 'parent company' MRC (which is a generally unreliable source per RSP), or from The Washington Times which is only marginally reliable on RSP.
Culture and Media Institute doesn't appear to be a separate organization from MRC. It's domain name cultureandmediainstitute.org now is redirecting to the NewsBusters' website, another project of MRC's. A search on that site for "Culture and Media Institute" doesn't bring up anything to indicate it's a separate organization from NewsBusters or MRC, and the earliest use of the term calls it "MRC's Culture and Media Institute". References to "Culture and Media Institute" on the website ended seven years ago. This indicates that MRC has 'retired' the CMI name/project and rolled it into NewsBusters.
Per
WP:NPRODUCT, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
Neither article is so large that a merging of content would make the target article 'unwieldy'. Also, since MRC is considered generally unreliable within Wikipedia, it would be best to put this content and any necessary mrc.org citations into the
Media Research Center article where "[t]he source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions,"
per
WP:GUNREL.
Platonk (
talk)
21:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Part of the names in the list are psychiatrists (who already are in List of psychiatrists), the other names in the list are included based on entirely unclear criteria. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Written in Odia (per Google Translator). Bits of lore associated with a goddess and a temple collected in a rambling fashion, likely to defy any translator who doesn't want to spend all that time to yield an unencyclopedic result. Very subjective, no indication that it's legend, though it appears to be. No sources and, in fact, the third sentence begins "There is no historical evidence, but it is certain that ...." I don't know whether this goddess is widespread or a product of a local cult, but the latter is suggested by the fact that Google returns only 62 hits for it in Roman letters and 22 when written in Odia (ମା ବାଶୁଳୀ ). Previously PRODded, then recreated as a draft and then moved to article space. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability under WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or any other relevant criterion. There isn't a single independent third-party RS cited; the article references are primary cites, blogs, and thinktanks the subject works with. Is there any independent third party coverage of Long in solid RSes? I asked on the talk page a few weeks ago for any such sourcing, to no response. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would be most useful if it could be shown. David Gerard ( talk) 21:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.Finding these independent RSes is the precise thing the article doesn't demonstrate, and that I couldn't find evidence of. Where are they? - David Gerard ( talk) 23:52, 7 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 00:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The Japanese Wikipedia article has a notability tag and is no better than this article. SL93 ( talk) 20:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2008-08 ✗ CSD A7
← 2008-08 ✗
A7
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Classic case of WP:REFBOMBing to high heaven to give an illusion of notability. Despite the edit summary i removed pr releases as spiderone put notes that there are too many press releases. there are still too many press releases and articles that do not even mention Sandhu at all being used as the basis for this article. A WP:BEFORE search also comes back with nothing useful at all.
Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This is my humble request to you that please approve this article.I'm wikipedia's regular contributer why should i add wrong data on wikipedia. If you want more information i can find it and add it.
Even his instagram is verified Nav Sandhu on Instagram.I mentioned his instagram in wikipedia you can check it.
The songs i have mentioned in discography of Nav Sandhu depicts his name claerly in all of them, if any clarification requried let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkhab ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Lacks sourcing. Doesn't pass/barely passes a before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, can't find any reviews or other significant coverage Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:56, 7 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 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Totally unsourced, can't find any reviews other than an extremely brief review in New Scientist. There might be other offiline reviews Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY. WP:GNG isn't clearly met either. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some claim to there being sources out there. Arguments are weak at the moment and have been rebutted by a single editor. No harm extending for a weak given minimal involvement to date, but would close as delete if no further sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
07:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
19:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. The French Wikipedia article shows no notability as well. SL93 ( talk) 19:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. GoodDay ( talk) 20:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This 14-year old stub fails
GNG. It's sole citation (from
AllMusic, labelled
no-consensus
at WP:RSP)
showed up 9 years ago — nothing since. A
BEFORE search brought up a lot of sales plugs, but didn't find any
reliable sources that would contribute towards
notability. Per
NOTCATALOG, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed."
Platonk (
talk)
19:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Former local band, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. There's some mentions in local media but I can't find any significant coverage. (This is the second band with vomit in the name that I'm nominating today, but I swear it's a coincidence.) Lennart97 ( talk) 19:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme 1499 18:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme 1499 12:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme 1499 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme 1499 12:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme 1499 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance is only the called up list for the competition. She could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 17:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 17:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 16 minutes in the league and 8 minutes in the cup. Geschichte ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary page; there is no need to have a list of historical national team squads. Nehme 1499 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The ethnical intersection in question is very small and insignificant, and escapes speedy deletion on a technicality (new ref). Geschichte ( talk) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colombia–Uruguay relations. Daniel ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. This group is small and insignificant. Geschichte ( talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paraguay–Uruguay relations. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Even though these are neighboring countries, the group seems pretty insignificant and certainly small. Geschichte ( talk) 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The fails WP:SIGCOV and has remained a stub since 2016 signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Former local band, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. I can't find any significant coverage, although it's possible it exists offline. Online, all I can find is a mention of one of their songs in this article, which isn't nearly enough. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
"Čhetáŋ" (not or Cetan) is the Lakota word for
hawk, and though I don't doubt the existence of a hawk spirit of some kind in Lokota mythology, I can't find any evidence that this one is notable. Unsourced since 2002 (!).
List of Lakota deities, where Cetan is listed, could be a redirect target, but I don't see much use in redirecting without at least one reliable source confirming this spirit's existence.
Lennart97 (
talk)
15:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete. Procedural close as article has since been speedy deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) 2pou ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film-personality. Most of the references are poor quality blog-like articles. Seems highly likely that this a paid article and the details mentioned are bogus (or hijacked from a different person with the same name). A Buzzfeed reference alludes to him being the casting director of The Avengers (2012 film) when he was 16 which seems highly unlikely. Also the claim that he is the story writer of Scoob! does not have any references apart from a WP:UGC site like Metacritic. Even if they were true he would not satisfy WP:GNG due to the absence of any references from quality sites detailing him apart from some link-ups to famous actresses regurgitated by blog type sites. Jupitus Smart 14:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alison Moyet. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. Laun chba ller 13:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is that this topic (perhaps titled differently so as to be more broad) is likely notable, but that the current article needs to be re-built from scratch, in a far more neutral manner, using a much broader scope of independent sources. Would suggest that if article creator wants to try again, the Articles for Creation path be utilized. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This page is basically just propaganda for the UAE government: the government tries to portray itself as a "leader in technology" and "leader in AI". The content is not sourced to independent reliable sources but to UAE government websites and news outlets that do not operate under freedom of media. There is nothing to indicate that AI in the UAE is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans Thank you for your feedback. I have gone through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines carefully before publishing this article, I don't see any bias in the content, especially that it states different information on the topic sourced from various reliable sources as well. However, I would love to know if you think this article should be part of an existing one or you have some suggestions to edit the content. Your suggestions are most welcomed. Thank you. Jaa Noble ( talk) 12:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
PianoDan Thanks for your feedback. I have added some more diversified sources from international journals and publications as recommended and added some more information to enhance the overall article. I will work on adding more of that. Would you mind letting me know if you have any more suggestions? Thank you. Jaa Noble ( talk) 12:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
PianoDan. Snooganssnoogans Thank you both once again for your feedback. I have added more content to enhance the article, give it more depth, and diversified the citations with international journals, books, and more as recommended earlier to abide by Wiki rules. If you have some more suggestions to enhance it further, I would love to know that. Your feedback is always welcomed. Jaa Noble ( talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Feminist Thank you so much for your feedback. I just need a little more help understanding how to do what you have suggested. So, I should create a totally new page under the title "science and technology in the UAE" and combine all the info included from the AI article with the E-Government in the United Arab Emirates one, right? I appreciate your support here since this is my first major article done on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. Jaa Noble ( talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dubai International Academic City. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. There is no substantive coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:34, 7 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. Daniel ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This is just a bunch of buildings owned by Dubai Holding. There is nothing to indicate that the collection of buildings are independently notable and deserve their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:34, 7 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 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This preparation method of tea doesn't appear to be notable, as I can't find any significant coverage of it. Unsourced article. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:17, 7 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 00:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable energy drink brand, unsourced and there's no significant coverage to be found. (If this article is deleted, Rooster Booster (horse) should be moved to this title.) Lennart97 ( talk) 14:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2008-07 move to →
Rooster Rooster (energy drink)
← 2005-04 ✗ deleted
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable brand of bottled water. Unsourced, can't find any significant coverage online. Lennart97 ( talk) 13:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm unable to verify that this drink even exists, there's nothing to be found online. Article is entirely unsourced and I'm surprised it has been around in this state since 2006. Lennart97 ( talk) 12:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Assistant prof, seems like WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF to me. Kj cheetham ( talk) 12:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Unclear notability. The subject has been one of Joint Secretaries (whatever it may mean) of a large political party in India and also one of the leaders of its youth wing. However, I found no indication that the person has gained sufficient notability as to have a dedicated article in an encylopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Assistant prof with a patent, not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 12:11, 7 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 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet
WP:SIGCOV or
WP:GNG.
Advait (
talk)
13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A non-notable basketball school with no sources used and very little information on the web. All that is linked on the article is the school's website and the school's league or conference it plays in. Nothing establishes notability or meets basic GNG. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Complete promotional fluff; basically my reasons for nomination are the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CosmoPop. wizzito | say hello! 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Small brewery which fails WP:NCORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company or of its product. Completely unsourced. Lennart97 ( talk) 11:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A huge part of this list article violates WP:DIRECTORY. See a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Star Magic artists. Per Mrschimpf there, "Wikipedia is not a talent agency database." JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Article has a totally unclear lead section, most of the article isn't even about school settings (schools are first mentioned in the fourth section, then never seem to appear again), but rather about speech and language disorders in general, which an article already exists for so this is a WP:CFORK. I am also concerned about possible copyvios as the wording seems to be rather unusual for Wikipedia, though this could have nothing to do with copyvios. It basically doesn't cover its topic, is excessively long, (oh, and the lead has been wikilinked to the moon by newcomers trying to help, but never mind that). Fork issue is the main problem
Mako001 ( talk) 10:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Completely agree. Knoitalno ( talk) 02:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bowers Mountains. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This Antarctica stub fails
WP:GEOLAND. It is related to a geological/geographical land feature on a continent without permanent human inhabitants and therefore cannot possibly be said to be related to a populated place, still less one with legal recognition. The sole reference is to a USGS survey listing that can be seen
here. This a pure directory-listing, and
Wikipedia is not a directory (and by extension
Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, though it has features of one, and so should not simply reproduce GNIS listings). It is also
not significant coverage since it is the equivalent of a capsule review, being only 45 words long. My
WP:BEFORE search turned up no further references. This therefore fails
WP:GNG.
This article was created by Ser Amantio di Nicolao at 00:51 UTC on 24 March 2008 during an article-creation campaign in which articles were created at a rate of one every 30 seconds or less, apparently by going through the GNIS database in alphabetical order and importing listings directly. That day 93 articles were created in this fashion. I say this not as a criticism of SAdN - 2008 was a long time ago and things were quite different then, indeed editors were encouraged to do this - but as an indication of the scale of the problem which I believe can only be addressed through bulk-deletion. I therefore intend for this to be a test-case on Antarctica geostubs sourced only to GNIS, similar to what was done with the articles on abadi that were sourced only to the Iranian census earlier this year. FOARP ( talk) 10:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus. Clearly some significant coverage. The UEFA source can be said to be independent, but as all editors with any experience know we need more than a single source to demonstrate GNG and the St Ettiene sources, being from her own club are to close to
primary sources to be acceptable for establishing notability. No harm in extending for another week to allow further investigation for new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes
WP:NFOOTY due to playing in the highest French feminine division and winning the 2010 UEFA feminine U19 Championship. As for GNG, here's
another UEFA article about her. Could those who support delete please flesh out the rationale for arguing that she doesn't pass NFOOTY?
Pilaz (
talk) 20:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)). Striking my !vote.
Pilaz (
talk)
16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG, the references cited are from non-reliable sources and all of them are about the artist, not the album. Onmyway22 talk 07:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Onmyway22
talk
08:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2022 Nebraska gubernatorial election. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Far WP:TOOSOON for this primary candidate. Sources, which are formatted oddly, do not indicate that Herbster passes WP:NPOL at this time, or WP:GNG for that matter. Users should edit Draft:Charles Herbster until the primary. If he wins, I would support the creation of a page. KidAd • SPEAK 16:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
12:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
05:59, 7 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 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is just an English translation of a popular Chinese idiom. Wikipedia is not a language dictionary. Every language has hundreds of idiomatic expressions, but these do not merit entries in Wikipedia. Mandarin Chinese also has e.g. "frying squid (炒魷魚)" meaning to terminate someone's employment, but there is (quite rightly) no Wikipedia entry for that idiom. Lemur in the Sky ( talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. Consensus based on discussion aligns with a BEFORE done prior to closing and demonstrates that this undoubtedly is a notable video game based on sustained, in depth coverage. This has been up just short of 7 days with no delete !votes thus I feel a snow keep is within reason. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not a notable game, and perhaps a bit too soon to make an article; I would like to see rationale and opinions from other editors on why or why not delete. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion. Geschichte ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary; only cites 2 sources, neither of which are reliable, and does not seem too notable. Philosophy2 ( talk) 04:02, 7 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 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Little to no sources about her. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:36, 7 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 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY - there are pretty much 0 sources about her, should be quick delete. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:30, 7 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 13:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:29, 7 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 13:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:21, 7 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 13:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:17, 7 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 13:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NFOOTY is failed, and she comprehensively fails WP:GNG as well. A quick search is proof. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:11, 7 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 13:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:09, 7 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 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY - you can see on here that she has not played in the Spanish first tier. She has also played in France/Italy, but the leagues are not professional there. No appearances for France. Plus, she fails WP:GNG - sources hard to find about her. Most are just routine coverage for when she signed for clubs. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
"Was said to be" a hoax or whatever--kind of a joke from the beginning, and never a hoax rising to encyclopedic notability. Drmies ( talk) 00:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree delete I only edited it because it was there. As BD2412 says maybe a merger if one is suitable Wandererjon ( talk) 10:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLP1E, basically, for lack of sustained coverage. First source is primary (authored by one of the subjects), second is a review of the book and not independent coverage of the couple themselves, third is another primary source (guy on his own website talking about meeting them), fourth ( working link here) is also by Liz Fordred, and the final one is basically a book review. What we don't really have is sustained significant independent coverage of the Fordreds themselves. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 30 October 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
00:02, 7 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. Daniel ( talk) 03:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. There is not much to these relations except a one off meetings of leaders, and a bit of aid. No embassies or agreements. Trade is negligible. LibStar ( talk) 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP/ WP:CORPDEPTH. Not a lot of coverage located on a search - mostly business listings and one source that appeared promising until I realized it was a novel.
It's also important to be aware of false positives. According to this article, the company didn't rebrand as Diversicom until 1999, so any sources about Diversicom before that are not applicable to this company. I was not able to find any significant coverage of it as "Melrose Telephone Company" either. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable local city newspaper. Article doesn't cite any sources. SkippyKR ( talk) 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:58, 7 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. Daniel ( talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Basically only a single meaningful source. That she got fined for missing scenes. Otherwise the usual poor referencing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2020-12 ✍️ create
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. Lack of indepth third party coverage of her. Gnews merely confirms she held a position at Constitutional & Law Reform Commission but nothing indepth. LibStar ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:48, 7 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 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to these relations except a one off meeting of leaders. Even the Turkish Foreign ministry site says little of relations. The excessively long further reading list contains no title including Turkey. LibStar ( talk) 23:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
PRODded per WP:DICDEF, then deprodded by recently topic-banned Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) without explanation. Just a dictionary definition without any encyclopedic information. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiktionary no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia, and so is not an alternative to deletion.As a result, I would support deletion of a non-notable phrase that fails WP:DICDEF. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Article seems to be almost entirely sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, agreements, state visits or migration. Even the article states "Mauritius is not a priority or preferential country within the Master Plan of Spanish cooperation" LibStar ( talk) 23:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
No proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Deprodded without explanation, although the original PROD rationale (Duplicates existing articles:
List_of_largest_cities,
List_of_largest_cities_by_area,
List_of_countries_by_largest_and_second_largest_cities
) was a bit off. My concern is that the article fails
WP:LISTN,
WP:NOTSTATS, and
WP:OR: All the data are unreferenced, and the only two references are in the lead about the term
megalopolis. Worse yet, the creator claimed that all the data came from other Wikipedia articles. I could foresee a
List of megalopolises that has better sourcing than the one in the Megalopolis article, but not this. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
23:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the walls of text produced by those wishing to keep, no clear evidence of notability has been presented. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This living person is not notable, and many of the sources cited are unreliable and/or self-published. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith ( talk) 22:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Before I removed them, there were many other sources which were blatant literal press releases from Zeickner - see the talk page of the article for my explanation on that. The article has existed for half a year now, so there has been time to add sources if they existed. It was initially created by an apparent corporate account, and has been facing huge amounts of edit warring when editors point out the problems with the article. I think most of the publicity around this artist is simple astroturfing - he isn't signed to a label according to his YouTube, and has very little engagement on his social media platforms for someone who apparently gets this much press.
The part about the Benin bronzes is the only real verifiable, notable thing there, and I don't think that section alone warrants Zeickner a whole article. -- HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith ( talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
It would only be re-added if it gets deleted.That's not how deletion works. If it gets deleted and an account starts trying to recreate it, they'll just get blocked and the article salted. -- HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith ( talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but its extremely ignorant of you to say the news concerning the Benin bronzes doesnt make him notable. People have done less with articles on wikipedia, dont let arrogance belittle your credibility as an editor.
RE: Actually I think you better read the policy. The articles arent just about the event, and his notability is not based on the unveiling itself but the thing which was unveiled. This is starting to get ridiculous and seem like you have an agenda at play for the baseless arguments. Sorry for using the term 'arrogant' because it seems you just want to win an argument falsely rather than respect wikipedia's policies. Also its rich of you claiming personal attack when you're the one attacking my page, and linking someone else's twitter account on my talk page. @ User:MrsSnoozyTurtle Can you chip in here? It is 100% false to cite WP:BLP1E to refer to this article about a living person being based on an event when the subject matter's notability is not for the event. The event took place BECAUSE of the notability of the work, and there are loads of news coverage and stories which arent even about the event. He is credited for the creation of the work not the unveiling of it. I agree with the original edits you made but not this false deletion discussion. @ User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Please accept that arguments against this notability is totally invalid. Actually as it stands, not a single issue persists in the article from the problems originally flagged about his music career which are gone from the article. So what exactly is the discussion about?
Personally I am removing the original message template from the article which is refers to issues that are no longer present on the article. Kindly verify @ User:MrsSnoozyTurtle
You also put blatantly false information such as saying contributor has close links to the artist which is not true and baseless.
RE: User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Sorry, I'v tagged the original person now.
Your only actual argument is that you personally dont think its notable
RE: I'm also one of the other editors here and I dont agree with you. Also no other editor has agreed with you concerning the Benin bronzes not being notable because you wrongly claimed it was as single event warranting the article which is blatantly false.
You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion"...
You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion" for a number of completely different people, so how can they self promoting multiple people?" This statement refers to the fact that you wrongly banned someone's IP based on what seemed to be an incorrect assumption. It is clear a 'self promoter' cannot be multiple people. This seems to be a case of the same IP being assigned to different people, which Wikipedia itself acknowledges is a common occurrence.
You complained about the name yet didnt bother to change it despite making loads of edits yourself, which seems a little petty from an editor's point of view.
RE: @ User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Like I said, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy against using a person's known professional name / stage name when its clear they're the same person.
WP:BLP1E refers to 'Events' not creations.
Also can you explain why you keep vandalising my signature? I'v contributed to loads of other articles but I happen to be spending more time than usual on defending this article since its my first article and you insist of needlessly fighting about it.
I editted it after I saw that you had posted that "no grounds for deletion" was incorrect and telling them to edit it to say "keep" instead for the vote to count? Sorry if it broke the rules you can undo the edit but its not like I was changing their vote or something. Yikes - User:Afrorocktv
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Claims this living person is not notable yet sources and internationally celebrated achievements says otherwise. Original arguments for nomination no longer stands as the all flagged sources were since removed. There are literally no unreliable sources on this article. Original sources she claimed were self published related to his music career and were removed. My bad.
signed by
User:Factsaboutnigeria Many people would seriously disagree with your statement that its not notable for wikipedia despite being notable for national and international news.
Dear Cody User:Clpo13 could you please review the discussion and assist in consensus? It appears the only reason for categorizing for deletion was WP:BLP1E which is not applicable. The items discussed in the article do meet WP:SIGCOV. I recommend the removal of tags on the article as they no longer apply to the article. Those voting for deletion are doing so against wikipedia policy with unjustified factors- signed by User:Factsaboutnigeria — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
_________
To all the editors User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, User:Afrorocktv, User:WaddlesJP13 Can we decide for good, I dont think it warrants such arguments. If you decide to delete it I will accept that if you believe it cant be improved further. If not, please make edits to improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaboutnigeria ( talk • contribs)
@ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: @ WaddlesJP13: Honestly this discussion is frustrating. I sincerely dont understand why you repeatedly refuse to correct yourself that this article is about a notable item and the notable person is its creator. Its not about the event itself which the sources confirm, you either didnt read them or for whatever reason falsely stated its referring just to an event. Either way I wont bother with this argument anymore. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia of world record title holders (single events) and notable people based on significant few or single accomplishments with 3 or 4 references. There are 14 high quality references here. The subject of the article is the creator of a notable work with all sources verifying that. No need to argue further, delete the article if you like. If more sources pop up I will add it later. Signed Factsaboutnigeria ( talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
"The creation of an object is an event" Could you please reference this definition in the policy? There's absolutely nowhere on wikipedia stating this.
Please read [ [1]] states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The event involved even the residing government. It is clear and obvious that the event is very notable and the subject's role was significant. The sources cover more than a single event (despite which the event is significant alone to justify the article). Mentioned in the sources is the plaque and its unveiling, the new Ahiamwen guild, and its relation to British Museum so I would say the subject is notable for more than one event. Please verify @ Clpo13: @ WaddlesJP13: @ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: @ MrsSnoozyTurtle: and vote fairly. I only think its interesting for it to be referenceable on Wikipedia Factsaboutnigeria ( talk)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
What is the need to make a disambiguation page for the "World's Greatest Detective"? Besides that mentioning those characters as the world's greatest detectives may be a bit POV, I doubt somebody would type the "world's greatest detective" on Wikipedia, making it an useless disambiguation page. Also, no article links it. --The Typos Checker ( fixed typos) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Police Camera Action! episodes#Series 2 (1996). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS - this, despite being a standalone article, is not a newsworthy event. Transplant organs are retrieved from source hospitals and taken to target hospitals every day in every country where transplant medicine is practiced. This one just happened to be picked up when the media were present. It is in no way a notable or newsworthy event, just something that happens every day. There might be some content that could be incorporated elsewhere but nothing jumps out at me. 10mmsocket ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Suspected hoax. While Chumbawamba did make a soundtrack for the film Revengers Tragedy, the song "Revengers Tragedy" does not appear on the soundtrack's track listing per a scan of the album's booklet or Musicbrainz. I do realize these aren't the greatest sources for verification. I was hoping to find this album on Itunes/Spotify so I can verify whether this song appears on the album, but no luck. If this ends up as a hoax, I request this put on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia as this was created in March 2010, over 11 years ago. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is consensus that an article is viable, though whether it should be a list rather than a prose piece is something for future discussions to decide. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a dictionary definition with few sources and a good chunk of original research; not much evidence of discussion as a general, standalone topic, as opposed to methods such as the Born–Haber cycle for predicting compounds. The only sources are one about a claimed observation of ethylene dione, and a book that discusses a lot of theoretical chemistry in the context of crystallography, but also does not discuss hypothetical compounds by themselves. Not every category needs a main article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Darmstadtium hexafluoride (DsF6) is predicted to have very similar properties to its lighter homologue platinum hexafluoride (PtF6), having very similar electronic structures and ionization potentials[3][66][67]"), Tennessine#Chemical, Oganesson#Predicted_compounds (including things as obvious as Og2!) Of course, all the things I'm mentioning here are thoroughly sourced (the predicted properties of tennessine chloride, for example, going to Pershina, V. (2010). "Electronic structure and chemistry of the heaviest elements". Relativistic Methods for Chemists. Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 10. pp. 451–520. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9975-5_11. ISBN 978-1-4020-9974-8.). jp× g 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge to Media Research Center. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America 1000 23:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP for a standalone article and should be merged into Media Research Center (MRC). This article is sourced with primary or non-RS sources: from its own website, from its 'parent company' MRC (which is a generally unreliable source per RSP), or from The Washington Times which is only marginally reliable on RSP.
Culture and Media Institute doesn't appear to be a separate organization from MRC. It's domain name cultureandmediainstitute.org now is redirecting to the NewsBusters' website, another project of MRC's. A search on that site for "Culture and Media Institute" doesn't bring up anything to indicate it's a separate organization from NewsBusters or MRC, and the earliest use of the term calls it "MRC's Culture and Media Institute". References to "Culture and Media Institute" on the website ended seven years ago. This indicates that MRC has 'retired' the CMI name/project and rolled it into NewsBusters.
Per
WP:NPRODUCT, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
Neither article is so large that a merging of content would make the target article 'unwieldy'. Also, since MRC is considered generally unreliable within Wikipedia, it would be best to put this content and any necessary mrc.org citations into the
Media Research Center article where "[t]he source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions,"
per
WP:GUNREL.
Platonk (
talk)
21:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Part of the names in the list are psychiatrists (who already are in List of psychiatrists), the other names in the list are included based on entirely unclear criteria. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Written in Odia (per Google Translator). Bits of lore associated with a goddess and a temple collected in a rambling fashion, likely to defy any translator who doesn't want to spend all that time to yield an unencyclopedic result. Very subjective, no indication that it's legend, though it appears to be. No sources and, in fact, the third sentence begins "There is no historical evidence, but it is certain that ...." I don't know whether this goddess is widespread or a product of a local cult, but the latter is suggested by the fact that Google returns only 62 hits for it in Roman letters and 22 when written in Odia (ମା ବାଶୁଳୀ ). Previously PRODded, then recreated as a draft and then moved to article space. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability under WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or any other relevant criterion. There isn't a single independent third-party RS cited; the article references are primary cites, blogs, and thinktanks the subject works with. Is there any independent third party coverage of Long in solid RSes? I asked on the talk page a few weeks ago for any such sourcing, to no response. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would be most useful if it could be shown. David Gerard ( talk) 21:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.Finding these independent RSes is the precise thing the article doesn't demonstrate, and that I couldn't find evidence of. Where are they? - David Gerard ( talk) 23:52, 7 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 00:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The Japanese Wikipedia article has a notability tag and is no better than this article. SL93 ( talk) 20:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2008-08 ✗ CSD A7
← 2008-08 ✗
A7
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Classic case of WP:REFBOMBing to high heaven to give an illusion of notability. Despite the edit summary i removed pr releases as spiderone put notes that there are too many press releases. there are still too many press releases and articles that do not even mention Sandhu at all being used as the basis for this article. A WP:BEFORE search also comes back with nothing useful at all.
Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This is my humble request to you that please approve this article.I'm wikipedia's regular contributer why should i add wrong data on wikipedia. If you want more information i can find it and add it.
Even his instagram is verified Nav Sandhu on Instagram.I mentioned his instagram in wikipedia you can check it.
The songs i have mentioned in discography of Nav Sandhu depicts his name claerly in all of them, if any clarification requried let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkhab ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Lacks sourcing. Doesn't pass/barely passes a before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, can't find any reviews or other significant coverage Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:56, 7 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 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Totally unsourced, can't find any reviews other than an extremely brief review in New Scientist. There might be other offiline reviews Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY. WP:GNG isn't clearly met either. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some claim to there being sources out there. Arguments are weak at the moment and have been rebutted by a single editor. No harm extending for a weak given minimal involvement to date, but would close as delete if no further sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
07:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
19:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. The French Wikipedia article shows no notability as well. SL93 ( talk) 19:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. GoodDay ( talk) 20:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This 14-year old stub fails
GNG. It's sole citation (from
AllMusic, labelled
no-consensus
at WP:RSP)
showed up 9 years ago — nothing since. A
BEFORE search brought up a lot of sales plugs, but didn't find any
reliable sources that would contribute towards
notability. Per
NOTCATALOG, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed."
Platonk (
talk)
19:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Former local band, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. There's some mentions in local media but I can't find any significant coverage. (This is the second band with vomit in the name that I'm nominating today, but I swear it's a coincidence.) Lennart97 ( talk) 19:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme 1499 18:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme 1499 12:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme 1499 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme 1499 12:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme 1499 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The reference used to source her international appearance is only the called up list for the competition. She could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 18:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme 1499 17:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 17:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 16 minutes in the league and 8 minutes in the cup. Geschichte ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary page; there is no need to have a list of historical national team squads. Nehme 1499 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The ethnical intersection in question is very small and insignificant, and escapes speedy deletion on a technicality (new ref). Geschichte ( talk) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colombia–Uruguay relations. Daniel ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. This group is small and insignificant. Geschichte ( talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paraguay–Uruguay relations. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Even though these are neighboring countries, the group seems pretty insignificant and certainly small. Geschichte ( talk) 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The fails WP:SIGCOV and has remained a stub since 2016 signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Former local band, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. I can't find any significant coverage, although it's possible it exists offline. Online, all I can find is a mention of one of their songs in this article, which isn't nearly enough. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
"Čhetáŋ" (not or Cetan) is the Lakota word for
hawk, and though I don't doubt the existence of a hawk spirit of some kind in Lokota mythology, I can't find any evidence that this one is notable. Unsourced since 2002 (!).
List of Lakota deities, where Cetan is listed, could be a redirect target, but I don't see much use in redirecting without at least one reliable source confirming this spirit's existence.
Lennart97 (
talk)
15:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete. Procedural close as article has since been speedy deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) 2pou ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film-personality. Most of the references are poor quality blog-like articles. Seems highly likely that this a paid article and the details mentioned are bogus (or hijacked from a different person with the same name). A Buzzfeed reference alludes to him being the casting director of The Avengers (2012 film) when he was 16 which seems highly unlikely. Also the claim that he is the story writer of Scoob! does not have any references apart from a WP:UGC site like Metacritic. Even if they were true he would not satisfy WP:GNG due to the absence of any references from quality sites detailing him apart from some link-ups to famous actresses regurgitated by blog type sites. Jupitus Smart 14:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alison Moyet. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. Laun chba ller 13:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is that this topic (perhaps titled differently so as to be more broad) is likely notable, but that the current article needs to be re-built from scratch, in a far more neutral manner, using a much broader scope of independent sources. Would suggest that if article creator wants to try again, the Articles for Creation path be utilized. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This page is basically just propaganda for the UAE government: the government tries to portray itself as a "leader in technology" and "leader in AI". The content is not sourced to independent reliable sources but to UAE government websites and news outlets that do not operate under freedom of media. There is nothing to indicate that AI in the UAE is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans Thank you for your feedback. I have gone through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines carefully before publishing this article, I don't see any bias in the content, especially that it states different information on the topic sourced from various reliable sources as well. However, I would love to know if you think this article should be part of an existing one or you have some suggestions to edit the content. Your suggestions are most welcomed. Thank you. Jaa Noble ( talk) 12:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
PianoDan Thanks for your feedback. I have added some more diversified sources from international journals and publications as recommended and added some more information to enhance the overall article. I will work on adding more of that. Would you mind letting me know if you have any more suggestions? Thank you. Jaa Noble ( talk) 12:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
PianoDan. Snooganssnoogans Thank you both once again for your feedback. I have added more content to enhance the article, give it more depth, and diversified the citations with international journals, books, and more as recommended earlier to abide by Wiki rules. If you have some more suggestions to enhance it further, I would love to know that. Your feedback is always welcomed. Jaa Noble ( talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Feminist Thank you so much for your feedback. I just need a little more help understanding how to do what you have suggested. So, I should create a totally new page under the title "science and technology in the UAE" and combine all the info included from the AI article with the E-Government in the United Arab Emirates one, right? I appreciate your support here since this is my first major article done on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. Jaa Noble ( talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Dubai International Academic City. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. There is no substantive coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:34, 7 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. Daniel ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This is just a bunch of buildings owned by Dubai Holding. There is nothing to indicate that the collection of buildings are independently notable and deserve their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:34, 7 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 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This preparation method of tea doesn't appear to be notable, as I can't find any significant coverage of it. Unsourced article. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:17, 7 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 00:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable energy drink brand, unsourced and there's no significant coverage to be found. (If this article is deleted, Rooster Booster (horse) should be moved to this title.) Lennart97 ( talk) 14:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2008-07 move to →
Rooster Rooster (energy drink)
← 2005-04 ✗ deleted
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable brand of bottled water. Unsourced, can't find any significant coverage online. Lennart97 ( talk) 13:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm unable to verify that this drink even exists, there's nothing to be found online. Article is entirely unsourced and I'm surprised it has been around in this state since 2006. Lennart97 ( talk) 12:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Assistant prof, seems like WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF to me. Kj cheetham ( talk) 12:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Unclear notability. The subject has been one of Joint Secretaries (whatever it may mean) of a large political party in India and also one of the leaders of its youth wing. However, I found no indication that the person has gained sufficient notability as to have a dedicated article in an encylopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Assistant prof with a patent, not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 12:11, 7 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 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet
WP:SIGCOV or
WP:GNG.
Advait (
talk)
13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A non-notable basketball school with no sources used and very little information on the web. All that is linked on the article is the school's website and the school's league or conference it plays in. Nothing establishes notability or meets basic GNG. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Complete promotional fluff; basically my reasons for nomination are the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CosmoPop. wizzito | say hello! 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Small brewery which fails WP:NCORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company or of its product. Completely unsourced. Lennart97 ( talk) 11:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A huge part of this list article violates WP:DIRECTORY. See a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Star Magic artists. Per Mrschimpf there, "Wikipedia is not a talent agency database." JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Article has a totally unclear lead section, most of the article isn't even about school settings (schools are first mentioned in the fourth section, then never seem to appear again), but rather about speech and language disorders in general, which an article already exists for so this is a WP:CFORK. I am also concerned about possible copyvios as the wording seems to be rather unusual for Wikipedia, though this could have nothing to do with copyvios. It basically doesn't cover its topic, is excessively long, (oh, and the lead has been wikilinked to the moon by newcomers trying to help, but never mind that). Fork issue is the main problem
Mako001 ( talk) 10:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Completely agree. Knoitalno ( talk) 02:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Bowers Mountains. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This Antarctica stub fails
WP:GEOLAND. It is related to a geological/geographical land feature on a continent without permanent human inhabitants and therefore cannot possibly be said to be related to a populated place, still less one with legal recognition. The sole reference is to a USGS survey listing that can be seen
here. This a pure directory-listing, and
Wikipedia is not a directory (and by extension
Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, though it has features of one, and so should not simply reproduce GNIS listings). It is also
not significant coverage since it is the equivalent of a capsule review, being only 45 words long. My
WP:BEFORE search turned up no further references. This therefore fails
WP:GNG.
This article was created by Ser Amantio di Nicolao at 00:51 UTC on 24 March 2008 during an article-creation campaign in which articles were created at a rate of one every 30 seconds or less, apparently by going through the GNIS database in alphabetical order and importing listings directly. That day 93 articles were created in this fashion. I say this not as a criticism of SAdN - 2008 was a long time ago and things were quite different then, indeed editors were encouraged to do this - but as an indication of the scale of the problem which I believe can only be addressed through bulk-deletion. I therefore intend for this to be a test-case on Antarctica geostubs sourced only to GNIS, similar to what was done with the articles on abadi that were sourced only to the Iranian census earlier this year. FOARP ( talk) 10:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus. Clearly some significant coverage. The UEFA source can be said to be independent, but as all editors with any experience know we need more than a single source to demonstrate GNG and the St Ettiene sources, being from her own club are to close to
primary sources to be acceptable for establishing notability. No harm in extending for another week to allow further investigation for new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes
WP:NFOOTY due to playing in the highest French feminine division and winning the 2010 UEFA feminine U19 Championship. As for GNG, here's
another UEFA article about her. Could those who support delete please flesh out the rationale for arguing that she doesn't pass NFOOTY?
Pilaz (
talk) 20:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)). Striking my !vote.
Pilaz (
talk)
16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG, the references cited are from non-reliable sources and all of them are about the artist, not the album. Onmyway22 talk 07:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Onmyway22
talk
08:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2022 Nebraska gubernatorial election. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Far WP:TOOSOON for this primary candidate. Sources, which are formatted oddly, do not indicate that Herbster passes WP:NPOL at this time, or WP:GNG for that matter. Users should edit Draft:Charles Herbster until the primary. If he wins, I would support the creation of a page. KidAd • SPEAK 16:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
12:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
05:59, 7 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 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is just an English translation of a popular Chinese idiom. Wikipedia is not a language dictionary. Every language has hundreds of idiomatic expressions, but these do not merit entries in Wikipedia. Mandarin Chinese also has e.g. "frying squid (炒魷魚)" meaning to terminate someone's employment, but there is (quite rightly) no Wikipedia entry for that idiom. Lemur in the Sky ( talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. Consensus based on discussion aligns with a BEFORE done prior to closing and demonstrates that this undoubtedly is a notable video game based on sustained, in depth coverage. This has been up just short of 7 days with no delete !votes thus I feel a snow keep is within reason. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not a notable game, and perhaps a bit too soon to make an article; I would like to see rationale and opinions from other editors on why or why not delete. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion. Geschichte ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary; only cites 2 sources, neither of which are reliable, and does not seem too notable. Philosophy2 ( talk) 04:02, 7 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 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Little to no sources about her. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:36, 7 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 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY - there are pretty much 0 sources about her, should be quick delete. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:30, 7 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 13:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:29, 7 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 13:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:21, 7 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 13:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:17, 7 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 13:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NFOOTY is failed, and she comprehensively fails WP:GNG as well. A quick search is proof. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:11, 7 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 13:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:09, 7 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 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTY - you can see on here that she has not played in the Spanish first tier. She has also played in France/Italy, but the leagues are not professional there. No appearances for France. Plus, she fails WP:GNG - sources hard to find about her. Most are just routine coverage for when she signed for clubs. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 03:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
"Was said to be" a hoax or whatever--kind of a joke from the beginning, and never a hoax rising to encyclopedic notability. Drmies ( talk) 00:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree delete I only edited it because it was there. As BD2412 says maybe a merger if one is suitable Wandererjon ( talk) 10:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLP1E, basically, for lack of sustained coverage. First source is primary (authored by one of the subjects), second is a review of the book and not independent coverage of the couple themselves, third is another primary source (guy on his own website talking about meeting them), fourth ( working link here) is also by Liz Fordred, and the final one is basically a book review. What we don't really have is sustained significant independent coverage of the Fordreds themselves. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 30 October 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
00:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)