![]() |
The result was keep. Withdrawn. The article still needs work, but after updates I think there is probably enough for notability. If there isn't, a redirect to Mosaic theory (US law) is certainly fine. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. No secondary sources, just a case summary. I see two cases Halkin v. Helms (one from 1978 and one from 1982) and cannot tell which one is being discussed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. If anyone would like this userfied or move to draft, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, the references are blogs and his own school's website. Winning the USTA under-18 National Clay Court Championships is a sign he might become notable, but there isn't enough to support an article today. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Product of an undisclosed paid editor (interested administrators can request evidence if necessary) of a businessperson that does not meet the general notability guideline or biographies guideline. While the subject ostensibly has many sources brought up in a prior search, none of the sources are actually about the subject: they are either highly promotional and non-independent or just sources that mention the subject or had the subject as an author. Bringing this to AfD to guard against future recreations. Sdrqaz ( talk) 23:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 22:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Obscure local compilation mostly featuring non-notable bands and on a non-notable label. Can find no reliable and significant coverage beyond basic track listings; was able to find a single blog review [3], while the album is occasionally mentioned very briefly in histories of the bands included, such as [4]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Not finding much coverage via web search. It's difficult because this product isn't commonly present in my local markets, but this looks like it may not be notable? —valereee ( talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that this individual is not quite notable enough for an article yet, although that could change in the future (and the article can always be restored). —ScottyWong— 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable local politician. County commissioner is not the sort of position that affords automatic notability under WP:NPOL, so we're left with the GNG, which Parsons fails: the only reliable sources in the article are either interviews or trivial mentions, and a WP:BEFORE search finds only more of the same. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comments since the last relist are rather weak and can't support a "delete" consensus. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
borderline A7 eligible article on a Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NORG isn’t satisfied. A before search leads me to user generated sources and primary sources all of which we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 22:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E-style issues. Every reference is of the form "the guy who paid everyone $70,000". Most of them are either interviews with him. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Price did not fade into obscurity after cutting his own salary. WP:ONEEVENT also clarifies that
Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event.Finally, although it is an essay, WP:NOT1E also explicitly states that
Subjects who were first notable for one event, and rode that fame into attention on their other endeavoursfall outside of BLP1E. Our BLP policy is actually designed to remove individuals like Ken Bone, who received his 15 minutes of fame for wearing a red sweater to a presidential debate and then fell out of the spotlight. — Ghost River 06:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nobody has put forward a convincing policy-based argument for keeping the argument. I'm sorry that people think there is systemic political bias at play, and am happy to restore the article to userspace or a draft on request. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
An article previously moved to draft by Onel5969 but subsequently moved back to mainspace by the article creator. The coverage referenced in the article largely concerns campaigns with which the subject has associated. The subject does not appear notable by the WP:POLITICIAN (party youth director and unsuccessful electoral candidate) or WP:AUTHOR (author of a book with self-publishing co-producers Europe Press) criteria. AllyD ( talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
17:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Net Educational Systems. —ScottyWong— 17:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much. Besides download links, I found a mention in a magazine, but I couldn't access it. Nothing in news. Isabelle 🔔 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
17:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This is just a glorified CV or LinkedIn profile. There is no substantive coverage in RS about the subject. All the sourcing is in non-RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Bu Abdullah is a authentic public figure and business personality from emirates,we don't think it goes against Wikipedia policies and it should not go for deletion in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This charitable trust article relies almost entirely on primary sources, with little or no verification of any of its key details in independent, secondary sources. The few independent sources that do exist are based on interview materials and are therefore also primary. A cursory news search similarly returns an absence of significant coverage not similarly based on primary material. Aside from this, the article appears to be written up in promotional manner suggestive of a fan or affiliate. The private charity does not publish financial records that allow it to be evaluated and verified by platforms such as charity navigator, and I do not see a particularly strong case, at present, based on the limited coverage available, as to why this entity should be considered notable from an encyclopedic perspective. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:58, 29 October 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. clpo13( talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Almost entirely based on blogs and self-published sources. Hardly any coverage in independent, reliable sources and no indication that the subject meets any of the notability criteria for artists, WP:NARTIST. No work in museum collections, etc. Vexations ( talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence subject passes WP:ARTIST. Prior AfD (April 2021) closed with keep, but two of the three editors supporting keep have since been indeffed as socks, so appropriate to resubmit. Article had large external links section, but all were online albums of the photographer's work, ways to buy his work in poster form, or non-RS blogs, so I trimmed them out. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion standard. The notability claim here is that he's a social media manager for a political party, but that isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists -- it's a role where inclusion would depend on getting him over WP:GNG on the depth and quality of his sourcing. But the footnotes here aren't notability-building coverage about him: they're all just glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, which is not the kind of "coverage" it takes to get a person in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 15:35, 29 October 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. clpo13( talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator ( talk) 14:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The opinions here are split rather evenly, and neither side's arguments are significantly stronger than the other, in my opinion. There were some interesting alternative solutions proposed during the discussion that seemed to find some support. It might be worthwhile to continue the discussion on the article's talk page or an RfC to see if consensus can be found for any of those proposals. —ScottyWong— 17:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. Any reader requiring an up-to-date directory of Catholic leaders should look to the church's authoritative directory. While the upper-echelons might be notable, bishop is a relatively minor position: there are nearly 5000 bishops around the world and over 100 on this list, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. (Note that, while other language wikis have similar pages, with the exception of the French one, they were all created by the same editor in 2019.) pburka ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines) with news discussions this week alone ( [7] [8]). Useful for members, supporters and detractors of the Catholic church alike. ⠀Trimton⠀ 16:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I looked through all the comments and can't decide whether "keep" or "redirect" has the upper hand. More input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. —ScottyWong— 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet Notability Requirements, while searching for references I mostly found social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn or directories of the malls they are in. VViking Talk Edits 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 05:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think this competition passes WP:NSPORT. Sourced currently to a blog. There may be in-depth coverage in Chinese or other sources but I’m not seeing it. Mccapra ( talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" arguments are weak, mentioning few sources. More input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability which cannot be inherited from notable parents, siblings or step parents and step brothers. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was Move to draftspace for despamming. There's (weak) consensus that she's notable, but also that the content is an awful mess of self-promotion. Accordingly, the article is moved to draft space. It should be moved back to main space only after the promotionalism and refbombing has been thoroughly cleaned up. Sandstein 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
CSD was declined, but I agree with the nominator that the article is unambiguously promotional. Re-nominating for CSD is not an option, so I'm bringing it here. Vexations ( talk) 13:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes#Saints connected with the diocese. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Armenians of Romania. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems there are not sources that support the existence of a distinct and notable enough Armenian dialect in Romania. Languages have a lot of small variations, from one village to another the language is different. But that doesn't mean all dialects spoken by the Armenian diaspora in other countries need an article. I propose merging into Armenians of Romania. A similar article, Armenian Moldavian dialect, was merged into said page a few days ago, but since the article was restored, I am opening a formal AfD so the page is not rewritten again. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Support merge into a new language section of Armenians of Romania, as suggested. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Armenian dialect (most of the Diaspora) and Eastern Armenian Dialect (in Armenia, Artsakh, Iran and former USSR countries). There is no French Armenian or Italian Armenian Dialect for example. --Armatura ( talk) 21:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Relisted twice already with no additional participation and ineligible for soft-deletion due to a previous proposed deletion. No prejudice against speedy renomination. clpo13( talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no substantive coverage by reliable sources of the subject. Just being a member of an enormous royal family does not seem sufficient for notability. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗ plicit 11:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Subject not notable and fails to meet WP:NSPORT Advait ( talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:44, 29 October 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. clpo13( talk) 22:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion. I did searches on Google Scholar, Google books etc. and did not find any substantial independent sources covering him. ( t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A majority of this page is completely unsourced and half of the actual sources are the subject's own youtube page. I do not think this page meets wikipedia's notability standards and should be removed. Apathyash ( talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.Beccaynr ( talk) 18:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)″
The result was merge to FKi 1st. clpo13( talk) 22:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable production team that is not independently notable from its most prominent member, FKi 1st. Far from meeting WP:NORG as well. Mottezen ( talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. The only in-depth sources I could identify were reviews of the service on TechTalkThai.com [11] and Beartai.com [12], but they don't seem particularly independent. (The former notes that it was invited by the company, while the latter includes a sales promotion at the end.) Article created by an SPA; 2016 PROD contested by Atlantic306. Recently repeatedly tagged for CSD by an IP editor, who has been blocked for disruptive editing (the criteria were invalid). Paul_012 ( talk) 10:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. He has played two games in the Danish 3rd division [13], has a world ranking from ca. #1500, and hasn't received the necessary attention from independent WP:RS to have an article here (yet). Fram ( talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Is close to meeting guidelines with a view to future potential at 2022 Commonwealth games. He represents Wales who do regularly send athletes to Commonwealth games and Olympic games. Notability is he has played 2 Team matches in Danish Badminton 3rd division. Interesting submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.232.128 ( talk) 14:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note that the article was previously full of exaggerated claims. He supposedly played once in the Brazilian Serie A, but this is not to be found at Zerozero (which explicitly states 0 Portuguesa games), Foradejogo or Soccerway. He then stayed in the non-pro Canadian Soccer League and after that on the third tiers and below in Portugal. In other words an amateur player. Geschichte ( talk) 10:48, 29 October 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.
Note: the previous PROD mentioned by Cewbot was added and then reverted by the nominator of this discussion, per Special:Diff/1053772848. clpo13( talk) 23:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable TV series Dronebogus ( talk) 19:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NEVENT. Have already added content from this article to the Telecom BCN article. No reliable sources to indicate notability Rogermx ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Supergirl#Matrix. ✗ plicit 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Why this Supergirl variant/plotline deserves a dedicated entry? The article is just a pure plot summary, with no reception/significance, and references are all primary (comic books), except a single forum post... In other words, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am not even sure what would be a good redirect target, and whether there is anything here that could be salvaged by merging; Supergirl#Matrix is entirely unreferenced and adding primary "references" from here there would be just a wiki window dressing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 29 October 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 12:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources have in-depth coverage of the subject (to paraphrase, mainly "Sarthak Sharma who developed AutoForSure" app says, "...""), and even if they did, I would strongly oppose using any of them, as they read so much like advertisements, there is no reason to believe they are independent. Navbharat Times says, at the time of the report, 300 drivers had already signed up. Makes it sound more like a human interest story about a young kid's school project, than an entrepreneurial achievement of an adult; and it's mainly propaganda for Modi's agenda. Multiple references are the same story in different websites, and all references can be categorised into two bursts: January 2021 and mid-2021. ( NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Completely unsourced (no sources seem to exist); thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Creator has continued to re-create this article in mainspace despite multiple draftifications, so this is the next step; this way also gets us WP:G4, which it seems we'll need. Curbon7 ( talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE check shows that there are no independent sources that provide a WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There are few press releases online which are not sufficient to show WP:NORG or any noticeable contribution in Nepal where the company is registered. The official website is dead. nirmal ( talk) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Seychelles Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of actual notability. The Seychelles are a minor cricket country, and playing for the national team doesn't seem to generate the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG. Listed as part of the team [17] but no significant coverage, and other sources are only databases or lists, nothing really substantial about him [18]. Fram ( talk) 07:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep, procedural speedy keep, wrong way to propose a merge. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing about this article that cannot be adequately explained by illegal number. I propose merging the articles together. See further rationale in Talk:Illegal prime. Rockstone [Send me a message!] 06:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
10:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)The result was redirect to List of universities and colleges in Nepal#Management colleges. ✗ plicit 08:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a private, for profit institute in Nepal. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. nirmal ( talk) 05:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 02:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 02:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect restored after block evasion. Graham 87 02:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. Listing here for further discussion as redirecting has not been successful, and redirect attempts have been repeatedly reverted. I suggest that we restore the redirect to Family Guy (season 2)#ep8, which offers sufficient coverage. ASUKITE 01:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to John F. Yancey. ✗ plicit 12:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
All evidence is that this place was nothing but Yancey's hotel. Possibly it could be merged into the Yellowstone article, but I don't see it passing WP:GEOLAND on its own. Mangoe ( talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Lightyear (film)
Unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability. The article and its references do not provide independent significant coverage of the film. The guideline on future films states that films do not satisfy notability if they have not completed production. Neither this article nor the references state that animation (which is the equivalent of principal photography) has been completed. Because the film has not been produced, this is too soon, even if films that are in or out of production are notable (which is a matter of contention). An analysis of the references is not necessary, but none of the references provide independent secondary coverage.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Deadline.com | A story about the teaser | No | Yes | Yes | No |
2 | Variety.com | Another story about the teaser | No | Yes | Yes | No |
3 | Variety.com | A pre-announcement | No | Yes | Yes | No |
4 | Fandango.com | An interview | No | No | ||
5 | YouTube | No | No | No | ||
6 | Comicbook.com | A 2019 article saying that there might be another film | Yes | No | Yes | No |
7 | Variety.com | Interview about an earlier film | Yes | No | Yes | No |
8 | Cinemablend.com | Article about the possibility of this film | Yes | No | No |
This is a Pixar film, and Pixar has enthusiastic fans, but Wikipedia requires notability in addition to enthusiasm, and this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines. As an alternative to deletion, this article should be:
the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.so I will change my ivote. Thanks. Lightburst ( talk) 02:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, state visits, migration, significant trade. The article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The relations are not subject to significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Withdrawn. The article still needs work, but after updates I think there is probably enough for notability. If there isn't, a redirect to Mosaic theory (US law) is certainly fine. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. No secondary sources, just a case summary. I see two cases Halkin v. Helms (one from 1978 and one from 1982) and cannot tell which one is being discussed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. If anyone would like this userfied or move to draft, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, the references are blogs and his own school's website. Winning the USTA under-18 National Clay Court Championships is a sign he might become notable, but there isn't enough to support an article today. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Product of an undisclosed paid editor (interested administrators can request evidence if necessary) of a businessperson that does not meet the general notability guideline or biographies guideline. While the subject ostensibly has many sources brought up in a prior search, none of the sources are actually about the subject: they are either highly promotional and non-independent or just sources that mention the subject or had the subject as an author. Bringing this to AfD to guard against future recreations. Sdrqaz ( talk) 23:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 22:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Obscure local compilation mostly featuring non-notable bands and on a non-notable label. Can find no reliable and significant coverage beyond basic track listings; was able to find a single blog review [3], while the album is occasionally mentioned very briefly in histories of the bands included, such as [4]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Not finding much coverage via web search. It's difficult because this product isn't commonly present in my local markets, but this looks like it may not be notable? —valereee ( talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that this individual is not quite notable enough for an article yet, although that could change in the future (and the article can always be restored). —ScottyWong— 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable local politician. County commissioner is not the sort of position that affords automatic notability under WP:NPOL, so we're left with the GNG, which Parsons fails: the only reliable sources in the article are either interviews or trivial mentions, and a WP:BEFORE search finds only more of the same. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comments since the last relist are rather weak and can't support a "delete" consensus. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
borderline A7 eligible article on a Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NORG isn’t satisfied. A before search leads me to user generated sources and primary sources all of which we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 22:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E-style issues. Every reference is of the form "the guy who paid everyone $70,000". Most of them are either interviews with him. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Price did not fade into obscurity after cutting his own salary. WP:ONEEVENT also clarifies that
Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event.Finally, although it is an essay, WP:NOT1E also explicitly states that
Subjects who were first notable for one event, and rode that fame into attention on their other endeavoursfall outside of BLP1E. Our BLP policy is actually designed to remove individuals like Ken Bone, who received his 15 minutes of fame for wearing a red sweater to a presidential debate and then fell out of the spotlight. — Ghost River 06:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nobody has put forward a convincing policy-based argument for keeping the argument. I'm sorry that people think there is systemic political bias at play, and am happy to restore the article to userspace or a draft on request. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
An article previously moved to draft by Onel5969 but subsequently moved back to mainspace by the article creator. The coverage referenced in the article largely concerns campaigns with which the subject has associated. The subject does not appear notable by the WP:POLITICIAN (party youth director and unsuccessful electoral candidate) or WP:AUTHOR (author of a book with self-publishing co-producers Europe Press) criteria. AllyD ( talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
17:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Net Educational Systems. —ScottyWong— 17:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much. Besides download links, I found a mention in a magazine, but I couldn't access it. Nothing in news. Isabelle 🔔 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
17:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This is just a glorified CV or LinkedIn profile. There is no substantive coverage in RS about the subject. All the sourcing is in non-RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Bu Abdullah is a authentic public figure and business personality from emirates,we don't think it goes against Wikipedia policies and it should not go for deletion in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This charitable trust article relies almost entirely on primary sources, with little or no verification of any of its key details in independent, secondary sources. The few independent sources that do exist are based on interview materials and are therefore also primary. A cursory news search similarly returns an absence of significant coverage not similarly based on primary material. Aside from this, the article appears to be written up in promotional manner suggestive of a fan or affiliate. The private charity does not publish financial records that allow it to be evaluated and verified by platforms such as charity navigator, and I do not see a particularly strong case, at present, based on the limited coverage available, as to why this entity should be considered notable from an encyclopedic perspective. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
16:58, 29 October 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. clpo13( talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Almost entirely based on blogs and self-published sources. Hardly any coverage in independent, reliable sources and no indication that the subject meets any of the notability criteria for artists, WP:NARTIST. No work in museum collections, etc. Vexations ( talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence subject passes WP:ARTIST. Prior AfD (April 2021) closed with keep, but two of the three editors supporting keep have since been indeffed as socks, so appropriate to resubmit. Article had large external links section, but all were online albums of the photographer's work, ways to buy his work in poster form, or non-RS blogs, so I trimmed them out. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion standard. The notability claim here is that he's a social media manager for a political party, but that isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists -- it's a role where inclusion would depend on getting him over WP:GNG on the depth and quality of his sourcing. But the footnotes here aren't notability-building coverage about him: they're all just glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, which is not the kind of "coverage" it takes to get a person in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 15:35, 29 October 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. clpo13( talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator ( talk) 14:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The opinions here are split rather evenly, and neither side's arguments are significantly stronger than the other, in my opinion. There were some interesting alternative solutions proposed during the discussion that seemed to find some support. It might be worthwhile to continue the discussion on the article's talk page or an RfC to see if consensus can be found for any of those proposals. —ScottyWong— 17:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. Any reader requiring an up-to-date directory of Catholic leaders should look to the church's authoritative directory. While the upper-echelons might be notable, bishop is a relatively minor position: there are nearly 5000 bishops around the world and over 100 on this list, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. (Note that, while other language wikis have similar pages, with the exception of the French one, they were all created by the same editor in 2019.) pburka ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines) with news discussions this week alone ( [7] [8]). Useful for members, supporters and detractors of the Catholic church alike. ⠀Trimton⠀ 16:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I looked through all the comments and can't decide whether "keep" or "redirect" has the upper hand. More input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. —ScottyWong— 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet Notability Requirements, while searching for references I mostly found social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn or directories of the malls they are in. VViking Talk Edits 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. clpo13( talk) 05:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think this competition passes WP:NSPORT. Sourced currently to a blog. There may be in-depth coverage in Chinese or other sources but I’m not seeing it. Mccapra ( talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" arguments are weak, mentioning few sources. More input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
14:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
No indication of notability which cannot be inherited from notable parents, siblings or step parents and step brothers. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was Move to draftspace for despamming. There's (weak) consensus that she's notable, but also that the content is an awful mess of self-promotion. Accordingly, the article is moved to draft space. It should be moved back to main space only after the promotionalism and refbombing has been thoroughly cleaned up. Sandstein 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
CSD was declined, but I agree with the nominator that the article is unambiguously promotional. Re-nominating for CSD is not an option, so I'm bringing it here. Vexations ( talk) 13:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes#Saints connected with the diocese. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Armenians of Romania. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems there are not sources that support the existence of a distinct and notable enough Armenian dialect in Romania. Languages have a lot of small variations, from one village to another the language is different. But that doesn't mean all dialects spoken by the Armenian diaspora in other countries need an article. I propose merging into Armenians of Romania. A similar article, Armenian Moldavian dialect, was merged into said page a few days ago, but since the article was restored, I am opening a formal AfD so the page is not rewritten again. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Support merge into a new language section of Armenians of Romania, as suggested. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Armenian dialect (most of the Diaspora) and Eastern Armenian Dialect (in Armenia, Artsakh, Iran and former USSR countries). There is no French Armenian or Italian Armenian Dialect for example. --Armatura ( talk) 21:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Relisted twice already with no additional participation and ineligible for soft-deletion due to a previous proposed deletion. No prejudice against speedy renomination. clpo13( talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no substantive coverage by reliable sources of the subject. Just being a member of an enormous royal family does not seem sufficient for notability. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗ plicit 11:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Subject not notable and fails to meet WP:NSPORT Advait ( talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:44, 29 October 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. clpo13( talk) 22:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion. I did searches on Google Scholar, Google books etc. and did not find any substantial independent sources covering him. ( t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A majority of this page is completely unsourced and half of the actual sources are the subject's own youtube page. I do not think this page meets wikipedia's notability standards and should be removed. Apathyash ( talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.Beccaynr ( talk) 18:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)″
The result was merge to FKi 1st. clpo13( talk) 22:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable production team that is not independently notable from its most prominent member, FKi 1st. Far from meeting WP:NORG as well. Mottezen ( talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. The only in-depth sources I could identify were reviews of the service on TechTalkThai.com [11] and Beartai.com [12], but they don't seem particularly independent. (The former notes that it was invited by the company, while the latter includes a sales promotion at the end.) Article created by an SPA; 2016 PROD contested by Atlantic306. Recently repeatedly tagged for CSD by an IP editor, who has been blocked for disruptive editing (the criteria were invalid). Paul_012 ( talk) 10:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. He has played two games in the Danish 3rd division [13], has a world ranking from ca. #1500, and hasn't received the necessary attention from independent WP:RS to have an article here (yet). Fram ( talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Is close to meeting guidelines with a view to future potential at 2022 Commonwealth games. He represents Wales who do regularly send athletes to Commonwealth games and Olympic games. Notability is he has played 2 Team matches in Danish Badminton 3rd division. Interesting submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.232.128 ( talk) 14:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note that the article was previously full of exaggerated claims. He supposedly played once in the Brazilian Serie A, but this is not to be found at Zerozero (which explicitly states 0 Portuguesa games), Foradejogo or Soccerway. He then stayed in the non-pro Canadian Soccer League and after that on the third tiers and below in Portugal. In other words an amateur player. Geschichte ( talk) 10:48, 29 October 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.
Note: the previous PROD mentioned by Cewbot was added and then reverted by the nominator of this discussion, per Special:Diff/1053772848. clpo13( talk) 23:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable TV series Dronebogus ( talk) 19:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NEVENT. Have already added content from this article to the Telecom BCN article. No reliable sources to indicate notability Rogermx ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Supergirl#Matrix. ✗ plicit 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Why this Supergirl variant/plotline deserves a dedicated entry? The article is just a pure plot summary, with no reception/significance, and references are all primary (comic books), except a single forum post... In other words, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am not even sure what would be a good redirect target, and whether there is anything here that could be salvaged by merging; Supergirl#Matrix is entirely unreferenced and adding primary "references" from here there would be just a wiki window dressing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 29 October 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 12:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources have in-depth coverage of the subject (to paraphrase, mainly "Sarthak Sharma who developed AutoForSure" app says, "...""), and even if they did, I would strongly oppose using any of them, as they read so much like advertisements, there is no reason to believe they are independent. Navbharat Times says, at the time of the report, 300 drivers had already signed up. Makes it sound more like a human interest story about a young kid's school project, than an entrepreneurial achievement of an adult; and it's mainly propaganda for Modi's agenda. Multiple references are the same story in different websites, and all references can be categorised into two bursts: January 2021 and mid-2021. ( NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Completely unsourced (no sources seem to exist); thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Creator has continued to re-create this article in mainspace despite multiple draftifications, so this is the next step; this way also gets us WP:G4, which it seems we'll need. Curbon7 ( talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE check shows that there are no independent sources that provide a WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There are few press releases online which are not sufficient to show WP:NORG or any noticeable contribution in Nepal where the company is registered. The official website is dead. nirmal ( talk) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Seychelles Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of actual notability. The Seychelles are a minor cricket country, and playing for the national team doesn't seem to generate the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG. Listed as part of the team [17] but no significant coverage, and other sources are only databases or lists, nothing really substantial about him [18]. Fram ( talk) 07:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep, procedural speedy keep, wrong way to propose a merge. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing about this article that cannot be adequately explained by illegal number. I propose merging the articles together. See further rationale in Talk:Illegal prime. Rockstone [Send me a message!] 06:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
10:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)The result was redirect to List of universities and colleges in Nepal#Management colleges. ✗ plicit 08:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a private, for profit institute in Nepal. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. nirmal ( talk) 05:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 02:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 02:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect restored after block evasion. Graham 87 02:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. Listing here for further discussion as redirecting has not been successful, and redirect attempts have been repeatedly reverted. I suggest that we restore the redirect to Family Guy (season 2)#ep8, which offers sufficient coverage. ASUKITE 01:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to John F. Yancey. ✗ plicit 12:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
All evidence is that this place was nothing but Yancey's hotel. Possibly it could be merged into the Yellowstone article, but I don't see it passing WP:GEOLAND on its own. Mangoe ( talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Lightyear (film)
Unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability. The article and its references do not provide independent significant coverage of the film. The guideline on future films states that films do not satisfy notability if they have not completed production. Neither this article nor the references state that animation (which is the equivalent of principal photography) has been completed. Because the film has not been produced, this is too soon, even if films that are in or out of production are notable (which is a matter of contention). An analysis of the references is not necessary, but none of the references provide independent secondary coverage.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Deadline.com | A story about the teaser | No | Yes | Yes | No |
2 | Variety.com | Another story about the teaser | No | Yes | Yes | No |
3 | Variety.com | A pre-announcement | No | Yes | Yes | No |
4 | Fandango.com | An interview | No | No | ||
5 | YouTube | No | No | No | ||
6 | Comicbook.com | A 2019 article saying that there might be another film | Yes | No | Yes | No |
7 | Variety.com | Interview about an earlier film | Yes | No | Yes | No |
8 | Cinemablend.com | Article about the possibility of this film | Yes | No | No |
This is a Pixar film, and Pixar has enthusiastic fans, but Wikipedia requires notability in addition to enthusiasm, and this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines. As an alternative to deletion, this article should be:
the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.so I will change my ivote. Thanks. Lightburst ( talk) 02:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, state visits, migration, significant trade. The article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The relations are not subject to significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)