![]() |
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 13:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable music producer. The best source I found during WP:BEFORE is this interview: [1]. Mottezen ( talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON for this potential future airline that does not own any planes yet. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Curbon7, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - /info/en/?search=Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Surely Wikipedia is not just for those airlines that tried to launch flights and succeeded, but also those that tried to start-up operations and will possibly never make it to fruition. Surely these people are worth documenting too? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 ( talk)
Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - /info/en/?search=Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Surely Wikipedia is not just for those airlines that tried to launch flights and succeeded, but also those that tried to start-up operations and will possibly never make it to fruition. Surely these people are worth documenting too? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 ( talk) Hi Curbon7, Oops sorry!! I have now pinged MrsSnoozyTurtle. Thanks for your help. MW1011 ( talk)
Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I have only just noticed that my page on Hans Airways has been taken down which is very disappointing considering the effort I put into it. That said and taking your points on board, is it not possible to keep the page as a draft until the airline hopefully gets closer to launch? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 ( talk)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
List of characters of a relatively obscure television show/tv movie spinoff. To the best of my knowledge there is no independent coverage of the grouping, and this is reflect in the list itself which reads as WP:FANCRUFT. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 13:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Annual list produced by Forbes. Seven of the sources are to Forbes, making them not independent, while the eighth is a passing mention that uses the list to study the performance of companies with better cultures to the market as a whole - in other words, not significant coverage.
A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little; the vast majority is press releases by the companies who receive the awards, while the infrequent independent coverage focuses on individual companies who are placed on this list, rather than the award in general. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The abstract notes: "In this paper we examine the market reaction to the announcement by Fortune of the ‘Best 100 Companies to Work for in America.’ Employees rate firms based on several criteria including trust in management, pride in work/company and camaraderie. To examine long-term performance, we calculate raw and risk-adjusted returns and then compare them to the returns of a matched sample of firms. In addition, we calculate the return on a buy and hold investment in the sample firm less the return on a buy-and-hold investment in a matched sample firm (BHARs). We find a statistically significant positive response to the announcement of the ‘100 best companies to work for’ by Fortune. Also, based on all measures of risk-adjusted return, we find these firms generally outperform the matched sample of companies. The BHAR results, although not exhibiting the level of statistical significance, are consistent with the raw and risk-adjusted return results."
The abstract notes: "This study examines the influence of women in business using a sample of firms on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and is an extension of Bernardi et al.'s work. We use the data from Bernardi et al. to determine whether a higher representation of women on a board signals an increased commitment of a firm to a quality environment and employment characteristics necessary to establish the firm on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Our findings include a significant increase in the number of female directors on Fortune 500 companies between 1977 and 2001. The initial analysis of the 27 firms appearing on both Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and the Fortune 500 in 2001 indicates a positive correlation between the number of female directors and a company's appearance on the “100 Best Companies to Work For” list."
The abstract notes: "This study identifes and describes the values espoused by the 62 companies that have consistently (2014–2018) appeared on the “Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For” (FBCWF) list. We identify 24 separate values and ofer an analysis of the keywords and phrases used to promote them. We confirm that these values fall within the categories of four well-accepted theoretical frameworks of corporate values and culture."
The abstract notes: "Using data from both the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Fortune Magazine's lists of Best Companies, we examine the relationship between making the ‘100 Best’ list and customer satisfaction. Based on a subset of the 100 Best in each year from 1994 to 2002, we find strong evidence that firms on the list earn higher customer satisfaction ratings than firms not on the list."
The abstract notes: "Each year, since 1998, Fortune magazine has published a list of firms deemed the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” based on their superior employer-employee relations. This relationship represents an intangible asset that may significantly influence future firm performance. We investigate whether investment strategies that invest in the 100 Best are able to outperform the market. The results indicate that portfolios, consisting of firms on the list, offer higher risk adjusted returns than the S&P 500 over the period 1998-2005."
The abstract notes: "We then empirically investigate whether positive employee relations is related to firm performance, focusing on publicly traded firms included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” The relative performance of these “Best Companies” is examined via comparisons to both companies in the broad market and a group of matched firms. Our analyses suggest that companies on the 100 Best list enjoy not only stable and highly positive workforce attitudes, but also performance advantages over the broad market, and in some cases, over the matched group."
The abstract notes: "The article discusses research pertaining to the actual performance of the 1998 “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” as listed by the periodical “Fortune.” The researchers used both stock market data and accounting data to assess firm performance. The study revealed that positive employee relations were beneficial for companies and may be related to overall improved performance. The research indicates that the time and money spent to create and support positive employee relations are a worthwhile investment."
The abstract notes: "Islam is valid for every place and time, and it promotes fair and equitable employees’ relations as an essential corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy for successful organisations such as Fortune 100 companies. Whence, this study aims to explore Fortune 100 best companies exhibit better market performance and capitalisation relative to other companies in relation to their employees’ satisfaction as a significant contributor to better performance."
The abstract notes: "Fortune's '100 Best Companies to Work For,' which are both superlative workplaces and superior performers, have some important lessons to teach. A content analysis of the websites of these firms and a comparison group suggests 3 lessons: 1. The 100 Best are distinguished by employee development programs, diversity initiatives, and a fun work environment. 2. They use their websites to tell the world about themselves. 3. They take advantage of the BRS cycle: Behavior creates the desirable workplace, which leads to public recognition, which leads to a company's public signaling about its work environment - which in turn leads back to behavior which creates the desirable workplace."
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)The abstract notes: "This research analyzed employee job satisfaction narratives on World Wide Web sites of companies named among Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” Fewer than one-third of WWW sites included narratives. Narratives were most likely to express job satisfaction in personal, emotional terms and least likely to identify job security, benefits, or compensation as important rewards of work. Narratives often appeared targeted toward new college graduates. Clichés were used excessively in Web sites and narratives."
The article notes: "Fortune first started ranking businesses in 1983 with their ‘Most Admired Companies’ list. They ranked both the ‘most admired’ firms and the ‘least admired’ firms in an annual survey. In 1997 they created the first ever list of the ‘World’s Most Admired Companies.’ Finally, with the increasing interest in worker satisfaction in the face of a tight US labor market in the late 1990s, Fortune created the annual ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ award in the January 12, 1998 issue (Levering and Moskowitz, 1998, pp. 84–95).
The article notes: "We first describe in more detail the Fortune award followed by a discussion of the relevant literature."
The article further notes: "The ‘100 Best Companies to Work For In America’ list is significantly different from other awards in that the authors, Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, survey employees rather than ‘experts’ and company executives. For example, Fortune surveys a traditional group of analysts, fund managers and executives in compiling their ‘Most Admired Firms’ list. [Discussion about another award from the Working Mother magazine] ... In surveying employees directly, Levering and Moskowitz avoid problems of misreporting and exaggeration by firms."
The article further notes: "In the initial survey of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America,’ Levering and Moskowitz selected 238 companies from a database of more than 1,000 firms that they considered most viable for the award. Companies must be at least ten years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. One hundred and sixty one firms agreed to participate out of the 238 identified companies. The 161 candidate companies were asked to randomly select 225 employees to receive the Great Place to Work Trust Index. [121 more words about the methodology.]"
The article notes: "The research examines whether Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” have a higher percentage of women on their boards of directors. Fortune and the Great Place to Work Institute have been tracking great employers since 1981. To be eligible, a company must be a least 10 years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. Each candidate company is given 225 Great Place to Work Trust Index surveys to distribute to randomly selected employees that evaluate trust in management, pride in work and company, and camaraderie. The companies were rated on a 175-point scale, using the measurements such as the overall score on the employee survey and an evaluation of the additional handwritten comments from the employees."
"FBCWF" stands for "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For". The article notes: "The FBCWF list is based on the framework used by the Great Place to Work® Institute to characterize what they consider a best workplace. Factors deemed important include high levels of trust, credible and respectful leadership, pride in the work, and camaraderie. For the United States, the Institute establishes a list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For®”. Since January 1998, the list has been featured in Fortune magazine, but the publication is not involved in the evaluation process. To be considered for the list, a company has to register with the Great Place to Work® Institute, have more than 1,000 employees and have operated in the US for longer than 7 years. They must also meet an initial certifcation standard, defned as an average employee agreement rate of 65% or more across all of the items on the Trust Index© Employee Survey (TIES), one of the two measures used to determine who makes the list each year (Great Place to Work® n.d.). The other measure is the Culture Audit assessment. Approximately 400 companies complete the full application process every year (Giuso et al. 2013). [several more paragraphs]"
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The sources used in this article are primarily discussing individuals who happen to use this platform, rather than giving much detail about the platform itself. I've tried to find WP:SIGCOV about the actual site, and am coming up pretty empty. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete - No notable coverage on the platform itself, other than a few social media sites.
Rlink2 (
talk)
17:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NCORP is not met. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 13:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Bio of businessperson, fails WP:BASIC because coverage relies on sources that are affiliated with the university that she attended, or news sources that appear to be sponsored by or associated with the company's marketing. Edge3 ( talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and other guidelines. Geschichte ( talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The head count is close (still a majority in favour of deletion), but the keep arguments largely fail to respond to the nomination. WP:TNT is not universally agreed-upon, but it is at least a valid reason to consider deletion. – Joe ( talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
American music business person. He's maybe notable, maybe not, but even if he is, one wouldn't know it from this refbombed piece of puffery that's basically indistinguishable from a CV. This needs a dose of WP:TNT and a rewrite from scratch by somebody who isn't in it for the money. (The article's creator is inactive since 2015 and their editing pattern resembles that of somebody creating promo articles for hire.) Also, there's this odd business at AN ( permalink), which fits the pattern. Sandstein 20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sarah Brightman discography. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. ATD is redirect to Sarah Brightman. Boleyn ( talk) 18:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Promotional article full or refs like imdb or primary sources. Last AfD was closed as no consensus due to no participation. Boleyn ( talk) 17:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Virtually unsourced article about an actress, making no claim of notability except commercials and a bit part in a sketch comedy series. As always, every actress is not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because IMDb technically verifies that acting roles happened -- the notability test requires evidence of the significance of her roles, such as notable acting awards and/or the reception of reliable source coverage about her and her performances in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though I'm aware my search is limited by language. Possible ATD would be redirect or merge/redirect to T. B. Jayah. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per Donald. Geschichte ( talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FILM. I did WP:BEFORE to no avail. FiddleheadLady ( talk) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Article about a television series, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the notability bar for television shows is not automatically passed just by writing "W was a television show that existed, the end" -- it requires reliable source coverage about the show to establish some significance. But the only source here is content self-published by the show's own producers, while a WP:BEFORE search for other sources went about exactly as well as you'll expect when I remind you that Teletoon was co-owned with another television channel branded as W Network, meaning I found a lot of Teletoon+W hits in that context and absolutely none whatsoever in this one. Bearcat ( talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 18:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 08:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The village does not exist, the creator has just been blocked indef for creating articles on mostly fictitious references with untelated references. Ymblanter ( talk) 17:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Goodman Group#Goodman UK. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG on its own. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Goodman Group, but it may overwhelm that article. Boleyn ( talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Got a flutter of coverage, mostly WP:CHURNALISM around the time it was established and basically nothing since. PepperBeast (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Subject does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interjectcite84 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. Uninhabited. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The first citation is a random Excel spreadsheet that does not mention this Togo, and the second is "How a Finnish Symphony Orchestra Collaborates with South Indian Carnatic Musicians". User:Spokane Ball yt, can you please explain this. This being the name of a country I cannot find sources about this supposed town, nor are coordinates provided. Reywas92 Talk 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 08:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The Google Maps pin is near a facility of some sort but I don't see a town. I cannot find any results calling this a town or otherwise notable place. The first citation is about opera of Turkmenistan?! User:Spokane Ball yt, why was that a useful link? Reywas92 Talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Like Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), since deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), this church was mentioned but not discussed in a mega AfD that closed as keep, logistically. A BEFORE for this particular church shows no evidence of notability with coverage limited to event listings and nothing that would meet ORG. Not mentioned in the city nor in the diocese, so a redirect wouldn't be helpful or DUE given lack of other churches' presence. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Rewrite can occur outside of AfD Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources used in this article is highly misleading, as it does not actually involve the individual itself on what these news outlets were writing about.
It also does not help that there are some severe conflict of interest violations going on in this article by its creator, a single purpose account. The article was initially already rejected at articles for creation for failing WP:GNG, but they ignored it anyway and decided to create it themselves exactly a year later after making a few edits to reach the edit count.
It also involves constant additions of puffery, copyvio images and subsequently removing COI tags in response. The very first reference literally goes to their website. There is also another single purpose account, which could possibly also hint at sockpuppetry. Otterslort ( talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The coordinates given here show an empty stretch of the Sahara Desert. Citation 1 is about places n France. Citation 2 which I do have access to is about the music of Chad and does not include this name at all, neither the supposed town nor the mentioned mountain. User:Spokane Ball yt can you please explain this? Reywas92 Talk 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:MMABIO for not having any fights in top tier promotions. While he appeared a few times on Bully Beatdown, I doubt anyone would consider that enough to meet WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 11:43, 10 September 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 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though someone who reads Japanese may find something I missed. No WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:36, 28 August 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. – Joe ( talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Not finding any worthwhile reviews or significant coverage in the article or online. Edwardx ( talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Comic Valkyrie. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Last AfD attracted little input. I may be missing Japanese sources, but I can see mentions but not enough to show it is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
A short-lived European project for a few countries that does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. Question mark over notability for over 10 years suggests this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Possibility to trim and selectively merge to Women in the workforce#Women in workforce leadership. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
-- RamotHacker ( talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)*Delete Simply not notable at all.
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from
Arnold Ventures LLC.
MrsSnoozyTurtle
11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any sources about this place, or where it is located. It is not in localiban; http://www.localiban.org/jezzine-district Huldra ( talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
No significant coverage that would meet GNG as required by criteria #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Participants in previous AfD mentioned that it appeared in historic pilot guides (similar to the current Sailing Directions source), but no sign of in-depth coverage has been produced. The relevant GEOLAND criteria haven't changed since 2015 but the practice of presuming named settlements to be notable has. – dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 27 August 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 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG: All sources (except for #6, which is the manufacturer's press release) are technology review websites or forums, where the bar for publication is not relative to any inherent notability of the piece of technology being reviewed. Note that many of these pages can also fall under the WP:SPONSORED banner, where affiliate links are provided at the end of the article, or where the review is commissioned by the company that produces the technology in question. A search of other coverage of the device turns up similar results. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The Hockey Canada Officiating Program appears to fails WP:GNG since I cannot locate any independent sources on the subject. I have only found information posted on web sites directly affiliated to Hockey Canada, which do not satisfy reliable sources required for GNG. Flibirigit ( talk) 02:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx ( talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Source analysis
|
---|
|
— Scottyoak2 ( talk) 16:50, 10 September 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 13:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND (housing development), negligible non-trivial sources to help improve the article Zulfadli51 ( talk) 05:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable sound engineer. Fails WP:ANYBIO because he was only nominated for an Oscar once. Mottezen ( talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. We have plenty of articles on stupider things, and clearly there's enough coverage of the relationship between Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, a relationship commonly referred to as "Bennifer," to justify retaining an article on GNG grounds. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The closing statement of the last AfD for this article was Delete...As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy.
I don't think that this revision addresses the issues raised in the AfD, but since that discussion was 10 years ago, I thought it would be better to bring this to AfD again. signed, Rosguill talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E. WP:BIO1E. The event in which the subject had a major role, which would be the invasion, not the test, was newsworthy but not notable. A redirect to Indian cricket team in England in 2021 could be recreated if and when the event this person was involved in is found WP:DUE there and finds a mention. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, the article is almost purely cobbled together from primary source predictions and independent sources either confirming or denying the prediction coming true, usually without any reference to Kurzweil. We do not dedicate separate articles to predictions made by individuals, which incidentally gives this article a silly level of prominence (prior to nominating for deletion, it is a top suggested result when you type in "Predictions"). signed, Rosguill talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Notability is not WP:INHERITED. All the coverage of Jorge Fernandez in my WP:BEFORE is simply coverage of Leylah Fernandez with some extra facts about her dad. I could not find any reliable sources that cover Jorge Fernandez in depth. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable niche business. No assertion, credible or otherwise, of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
*Delete I’m not seeing anything that would pass
WP:NCORP.
Mccapra (
talk)
12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film, there are some passing mentions and primary sources but no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. The article was deleted previously, see Ananda Ashru (2020 film). আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a television series that only just entered the production pipeline, and is not yet properly demonstrated as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the base notability criterion for a television series is that it has been upfronted by a television network, and TV series are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment you can single-source that production has started on a pilot -- but the only sources here are a single casting announcement and a glancing namecheck of this show's existence in an article about its lead actress being cast in an unrelated film, which is not enough coverage to claim that this would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass TVSHOW. So no prejudice against recreation if and when a television network actually announces a hard and firm premiere date, but just entering the production pipeline is not enough to make a TV series notable in and of itself. (And for added bonus, this was such a half-assed rush job that the creator described and categorized it as an American series even though the casting source clearly describes it as a British one.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Joseph D'souza. ✗ plicit 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Not notable and fails to meet WP:NCORP. Only 52 hits in Google News for "Dignity Freedom Network" OR "Dalit Freedom Network": half of the sources are blacklisted/unreliable and the rest do not provide significant coverage. GBooks hardly helps either. We already have an article on the founder Joseph D'souza. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Bigger fish to fry. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:V (there's no source for much of this, some sections are entirely redlinks), is basically a typical example WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and accomplishes no purpose that couldn't already be done via Category:Rail transport publications. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Cannot find anything to substantiate WP:GNG here (having an ISSN number is not "significant coverage" nor is it proof that this is notable). The publisher of this doesn't appear to be notable either (and doesn't have an article either), so there's no where logical to redirect to; and owing to the absence of sources it wouldn't make sense to keep it on the relevant list article (in the article see also section). So there's not much else to be done but to delete this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. A condo complex in a city with a surfeit of such. Brief mentions in reputable media such as The Globe and Mail re: its allegedly huge number of Airbnb units, but no in-depth coverage of the building or its architecture. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 13:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable music producer. The best source I found during WP:BEFORE is this interview: [1]. Mottezen ( talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON for this potential future airline that does not own any planes yet. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Curbon7, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - /info/en/?search=Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Surely Wikipedia is not just for those airlines that tried to launch flights and succeeded, but also those that tried to start-up operations and will possibly never make it to fruition. Surely these people are worth documenting too? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 ( talk)
Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - /info/en/?search=Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Surely Wikipedia is not just for those airlines that tried to launch flights and succeeded, but also those that tried to start-up operations and will possibly never make it to fruition. Surely these people are worth documenting too? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 ( talk) Hi Curbon7, Oops sorry!! I have now pinged MrsSnoozyTurtle. Thanks for your help. MW1011 ( talk)
Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I have only just noticed that my page on Hans Airways has been taken down which is very disappointing considering the effort I put into it. That said and taking your points on board, is it not possible to keep the page as a draft until the airline hopefully gets closer to launch? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 ( talk)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
List of characters of a relatively obscure television show/tv movie spinoff. To the best of my knowledge there is no independent coverage of the grouping, and this is reflect in the list itself which reads as WP:FANCRUFT. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 13:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Annual list produced by Forbes. Seven of the sources are to Forbes, making them not independent, while the eighth is a passing mention that uses the list to study the performance of companies with better cultures to the market as a whole - in other words, not significant coverage.
A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little; the vast majority is press releases by the companies who receive the awards, while the infrequent independent coverage focuses on individual companies who are placed on this list, rather than the award in general. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The abstract notes: "In this paper we examine the market reaction to the announcement by Fortune of the ‘Best 100 Companies to Work for in America.’ Employees rate firms based on several criteria including trust in management, pride in work/company and camaraderie. To examine long-term performance, we calculate raw and risk-adjusted returns and then compare them to the returns of a matched sample of firms. In addition, we calculate the return on a buy and hold investment in the sample firm less the return on a buy-and-hold investment in a matched sample firm (BHARs). We find a statistically significant positive response to the announcement of the ‘100 best companies to work for’ by Fortune. Also, based on all measures of risk-adjusted return, we find these firms generally outperform the matched sample of companies. The BHAR results, although not exhibiting the level of statistical significance, are consistent with the raw and risk-adjusted return results."
The abstract notes: "This study examines the influence of women in business using a sample of firms on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and is an extension of Bernardi et al.'s work. We use the data from Bernardi et al. to determine whether a higher representation of women on a board signals an increased commitment of a firm to a quality environment and employment characteristics necessary to establish the firm on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Our findings include a significant increase in the number of female directors on Fortune 500 companies between 1977 and 2001. The initial analysis of the 27 firms appearing on both Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and the Fortune 500 in 2001 indicates a positive correlation between the number of female directors and a company's appearance on the “100 Best Companies to Work For” list."
The abstract notes: "This study identifes and describes the values espoused by the 62 companies that have consistently (2014–2018) appeared on the “Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For” (FBCWF) list. We identify 24 separate values and ofer an analysis of the keywords and phrases used to promote them. We confirm that these values fall within the categories of four well-accepted theoretical frameworks of corporate values and culture."
The abstract notes: "Using data from both the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Fortune Magazine's lists of Best Companies, we examine the relationship between making the ‘100 Best’ list and customer satisfaction. Based on a subset of the 100 Best in each year from 1994 to 2002, we find strong evidence that firms on the list earn higher customer satisfaction ratings than firms not on the list."
The abstract notes: "Each year, since 1998, Fortune magazine has published a list of firms deemed the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” based on their superior employer-employee relations. This relationship represents an intangible asset that may significantly influence future firm performance. We investigate whether investment strategies that invest in the 100 Best are able to outperform the market. The results indicate that portfolios, consisting of firms on the list, offer higher risk adjusted returns than the S&P 500 over the period 1998-2005."
The abstract notes: "We then empirically investigate whether positive employee relations is related to firm performance, focusing on publicly traded firms included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” The relative performance of these “Best Companies” is examined via comparisons to both companies in the broad market and a group of matched firms. Our analyses suggest that companies on the 100 Best list enjoy not only stable and highly positive workforce attitudes, but also performance advantages over the broad market, and in some cases, over the matched group."
The abstract notes: "The article discusses research pertaining to the actual performance of the 1998 “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” as listed by the periodical “Fortune.” The researchers used both stock market data and accounting data to assess firm performance. The study revealed that positive employee relations were beneficial for companies and may be related to overall improved performance. The research indicates that the time and money spent to create and support positive employee relations are a worthwhile investment."
The abstract notes: "Islam is valid for every place and time, and it promotes fair and equitable employees’ relations as an essential corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy for successful organisations such as Fortune 100 companies. Whence, this study aims to explore Fortune 100 best companies exhibit better market performance and capitalisation relative to other companies in relation to their employees’ satisfaction as a significant contributor to better performance."
The abstract notes: "Fortune's '100 Best Companies to Work For,' which are both superlative workplaces and superior performers, have some important lessons to teach. A content analysis of the websites of these firms and a comparison group suggests 3 lessons: 1. The 100 Best are distinguished by employee development programs, diversity initiatives, and a fun work environment. 2. They use their websites to tell the world about themselves. 3. They take advantage of the BRS cycle: Behavior creates the desirable workplace, which leads to public recognition, which leads to a company's public signaling about its work environment - which in turn leads back to behavior which creates the desirable workplace."
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)The abstract notes: "This research analyzed employee job satisfaction narratives on World Wide Web sites of companies named among Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” Fewer than one-third of WWW sites included narratives. Narratives were most likely to express job satisfaction in personal, emotional terms and least likely to identify job security, benefits, or compensation as important rewards of work. Narratives often appeared targeted toward new college graduates. Clichés were used excessively in Web sites and narratives."
The article notes: "Fortune first started ranking businesses in 1983 with their ‘Most Admired Companies’ list. They ranked both the ‘most admired’ firms and the ‘least admired’ firms in an annual survey. In 1997 they created the first ever list of the ‘World’s Most Admired Companies.’ Finally, with the increasing interest in worker satisfaction in the face of a tight US labor market in the late 1990s, Fortune created the annual ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ award in the January 12, 1998 issue (Levering and Moskowitz, 1998, pp. 84–95).
The article notes: "We first describe in more detail the Fortune award followed by a discussion of the relevant literature."
The article further notes: "The ‘100 Best Companies to Work For In America’ list is significantly different from other awards in that the authors, Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, survey employees rather than ‘experts’ and company executives. For example, Fortune surveys a traditional group of analysts, fund managers and executives in compiling their ‘Most Admired Firms’ list. [Discussion about another award from the Working Mother magazine] ... In surveying employees directly, Levering and Moskowitz avoid problems of misreporting and exaggeration by firms."
The article further notes: "In the initial survey of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America,’ Levering and Moskowitz selected 238 companies from a database of more than 1,000 firms that they considered most viable for the award. Companies must be at least ten years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. One hundred and sixty one firms agreed to participate out of the 238 identified companies. The 161 candidate companies were asked to randomly select 225 employees to receive the Great Place to Work Trust Index. [121 more words about the methodology.]"
The article notes: "The research examines whether Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” have a higher percentage of women on their boards of directors. Fortune and the Great Place to Work Institute have been tracking great employers since 1981. To be eligible, a company must be a least 10 years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. Each candidate company is given 225 Great Place to Work Trust Index surveys to distribute to randomly selected employees that evaluate trust in management, pride in work and company, and camaraderie. The companies were rated on a 175-point scale, using the measurements such as the overall score on the employee survey and an evaluation of the additional handwritten comments from the employees."
"FBCWF" stands for "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For". The article notes: "The FBCWF list is based on the framework used by the Great Place to Work® Institute to characterize what they consider a best workplace. Factors deemed important include high levels of trust, credible and respectful leadership, pride in the work, and camaraderie. For the United States, the Institute establishes a list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For®”. Since January 1998, the list has been featured in Fortune magazine, but the publication is not involved in the evaluation process. To be considered for the list, a company has to register with the Great Place to Work® Institute, have more than 1,000 employees and have operated in the US for longer than 7 years. They must also meet an initial certifcation standard, defned as an average employee agreement rate of 65% or more across all of the items on the Trust Index© Employee Survey (TIES), one of the two measures used to determine who makes the list each year (Great Place to Work® n.d.). The other measure is the Culture Audit assessment. Approximately 400 companies complete the full application process every year (Giuso et al. 2013). [several more paragraphs]"
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The sources used in this article are primarily discussing individuals who happen to use this platform, rather than giving much detail about the platform itself. I've tried to find WP:SIGCOV about the actual site, and am coming up pretty empty. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete - No notable coverage on the platform itself, other than a few social media sites.
Rlink2 (
talk)
17:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NCORP is not met. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 13:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Bio of businessperson, fails WP:BASIC because coverage relies on sources that are affiliated with the university that she attended, or news sources that appear to be sponsored by or associated with the company's marketing. Edge3 ( talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and other guidelines. Geschichte ( talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. The head count is close (still a majority in favour of deletion), but the keep arguments largely fail to respond to the nomination. WP:TNT is not universally agreed-upon, but it is at least a valid reason to consider deletion. – Joe ( talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
American music business person. He's maybe notable, maybe not, but even if he is, one wouldn't know it from this refbombed piece of puffery that's basically indistinguishable from a CV. This needs a dose of WP:TNT and a rewrite from scratch by somebody who isn't in it for the money. (The article's creator is inactive since 2015 and their editing pattern resembles that of somebody creating promo articles for hire.) Also, there's this odd business at AN ( permalink), which fits the pattern. Sandstein 20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sarah Brightman discography. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. ATD is redirect to Sarah Brightman. Boleyn ( talk) 18:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Promotional article full or refs like imdb or primary sources. Last AfD was closed as no consensus due to no participation. Boleyn ( talk) 17:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Virtually unsourced article about an actress, making no claim of notability except commercials and a bit part in a sketch comedy series. As always, every actress is not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because IMDb technically verifies that acting roles happened -- the notability test requires evidence of the significance of her roles, such as notable acting awards and/or the reception of reliable source coverage about her and her performances in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though I'm aware my search is limited by language. Possible ATD would be redirect or merge/redirect to T. B. Jayah. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per Donald. Geschichte ( talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FILM. I did WP:BEFORE to no avail. FiddleheadLady ( talk) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Article about a television series, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the notability bar for television shows is not automatically passed just by writing "W was a television show that existed, the end" -- it requires reliable source coverage about the show to establish some significance. But the only source here is content self-published by the show's own producers, while a WP:BEFORE search for other sources went about exactly as well as you'll expect when I remind you that Teletoon was co-owned with another television channel branded as W Network, meaning I found a lot of Teletoon+W hits in that context and absolutely none whatsoever in this one. Bearcat ( talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 18:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 08:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The village does not exist, the creator has just been blocked indef for creating articles on mostly fictitious references with untelated references. Ymblanter ( talk) 17:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Goodman Group#Goodman UK. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG on its own. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Goodman Group, but it may overwhelm that article. Boleyn ( talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Got a flutter of coverage, mostly WP:CHURNALISM around the time it was established and basically nothing since. PepperBeast (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Subject does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interjectcite84 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Not notable. Uninhabited. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The first citation is a random Excel spreadsheet that does not mention this Togo, and the second is "How a Finnish Symphony Orchestra Collaborates with South Indian Carnatic Musicians". User:Spokane Ball yt, can you please explain this. This being the name of a country I cannot find sources about this supposed town, nor are coordinates provided. Reywas92 Talk 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 08:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The Google Maps pin is near a facility of some sort but I don't see a town. I cannot find any results calling this a town or otherwise notable place. The first citation is about opera of Turkmenistan?! User:Spokane Ball yt, why was that a useful link? Reywas92 Talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Like Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), since deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), this church was mentioned but not discussed in a mega AfD that closed as keep, logistically. A BEFORE for this particular church shows no evidence of notability with coverage limited to event listings and nothing that would meet ORG. Not mentioned in the city nor in the diocese, so a redirect wouldn't be helpful or DUE given lack of other churches' presence. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Rewrite can occur outside of AfD Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources used in this article is highly misleading, as it does not actually involve the individual itself on what these news outlets were writing about.
It also does not help that there are some severe conflict of interest violations going on in this article by its creator, a single purpose account. The article was initially already rejected at articles for creation for failing WP:GNG, but they ignored it anyway and decided to create it themselves exactly a year later after making a few edits to reach the edit count.
It also involves constant additions of puffery, copyvio images and subsequently removing COI tags in response. The very first reference literally goes to their website. There is also another single purpose account, which could possibly also hint at sockpuppetry. Otterslort ( talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The coordinates given here show an empty stretch of the Sahara Desert. Citation 1 is about places n France. Citation 2 which I do have access to is about the music of Chad and does not include this name at all, neither the supposed town nor the mentioned mountain. User:Spokane Ball yt can you please explain this? Reywas92 Talk 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:MMABIO for not having any fights in top tier promotions. While he appeared a few times on Bully Beatdown, I doubt anyone would consider that enough to meet WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 11:43, 10 September 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 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though someone who reads Japanese may find something I missed. No WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:36, 28 August 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. – Joe ( talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Not finding any worthwhile reviews or significant coverage in the article or online. Edwardx ( talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Comic Valkyrie. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Last AfD attracted little input. I may be missing Japanese sources, but I can see mentions but not enough to show it is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
A short-lived European project for a few countries that does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. Question mark over notability for over 10 years suggests this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Possibility to trim and selectively merge to Women in the workforce#Women in workforce leadership. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
-- RamotHacker ( talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)*Delete Simply not notable at all.
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from
Arnold Ventures LLC.
MrsSnoozyTurtle
11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any sources about this place, or where it is located. It is not in localiban; http://www.localiban.org/jezzine-district Huldra ( talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
No significant coverage that would meet GNG as required by criteria #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Participants in previous AfD mentioned that it appeared in historic pilot guides (similar to the current Sailing Directions source), but no sign of in-depth coverage has been produced. The relevant GEOLAND criteria haven't changed since 2015 but the practice of presuming named settlements to be notable has. – dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 27 August 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 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG: All sources (except for #6, which is the manufacturer's press release) are technology review websites or forums, where the bar for publication is not relative to any inherent notability of the piece of technology being reviewed. Note that many of these pages can also fall under the WP:SPONSORED banner, where affiliate links are provided at the end of the article, or where the review is commissioned by the company that produces the technology in question. A search of other coverage of the device turns up similar results. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The Hockey Canada Officiating Program appears to fails WP:GNG since I cannot locate any independent sources on the subject. I have only found information posted on web sites directly affiliated to Hockey Canada, which do not satisfy reliable sources required for GNG. Flibirigit ( talk) 02:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx ( talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Source analysis
|
---|
|
— Scottyoak2 ( talk) 16:50, 10 September 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 13:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND (housing development), negligible non-trivial sources to help improve the article Zulfadli51 ( talk) 05:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable sound engineer. Fails WP:ANYBIO because he was only nominated for an Oscar once. Mottezen ( talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. We have plenty of articles on stupider things, and clearly there's enough coverage of the relationship between Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, a relationship commonly referred to as "Bennifer," to justify retaining an article on GNG grounds. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The closing statement of the last AfD for this article was Delete...As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy.
I don't think that this revision addresses the issues raised in the AfD, but since that discussion was 10 years ago, I thought it would be better to bring this to AfD again. signed, Rosguill talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E. WP:BIO1E. The event in which the subject had a major role, which would be the invasion, not the test, was newsworthy but not notable. A redirect to Indian cricket team in England in 2021 could be recreated if and when the event this person was involved in is found WP:DUE there and finds a mention. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, the article is almost purely cobbled together from primary source predictions and independent sources either confirming or denying the prediction coming true, usually without any reference to Kurzweil. We do not dedicate separate articles to predictions made by individuals, which incidentally gives this article a silly level of prominence (prior to nominating for deletion, it is a top suggested result when you type in "Predictions"). signed, Rosguill talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 06:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Notability is not WP:INHERITED. All the coverage of Jorge Fernandez in my WP:BEFORE is simply coverage of Leylah Fernandez with some extra facts about her dad. I could not find any reliable sources that cover Jorge Fernandez in depth. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable niche business. No assertion, credible or otherwise, of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
*Delete I’m not seeing anything that would pass
WP:NCORP.
Mccapra (
talk)
12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Non notable film, there are some passing mentions and primary sources but no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. The article was deleted previously, see Ananda Ashru (2020 film). আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a television series that only just entered the production pipeline, and is not yet properly demonstrated as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the base notability criterion for a television series is that it has been upfronted by a television network, and TV series are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment you can single-source that production has started on a pilot -- but the only sources here are a single casting announcement and a glancing namecheck of this show's existence in an article about its lead actress being cast in an unrelated film, which is not enough coverage to claim that this would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass TVSHOW. So no prejudice against recreation if and when a television network actually announces a hard and firm premiere date, but just entering the production pipeline is not enough to make a TV series notable in and of itself. (And for added bonus, this was such a half-assed rush job that the creator described and categorized it as an American series even though the casting source clearly describes it as a British one.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Joseph D'souza. ✗ plicit 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Not notable and fails to meet WP:NCORP. Only 52 hits in Google News for "Dignity Freedom Network" OR "Dalit Freedom Network": half of the sources are blacklisted/unreliable and the rest do not provide significant coverage. GBooks hardly helps either. We already have an article on the founder Joseph D'souza. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Bigger fish to fry. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:V (there's no source for much of this, some sections are entirely redlinks), is basically a typical example WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and accomplishes no purpose that couldn't already be done via Category:Rail transport publications. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Cannot find anything to substantiate WP:GNG here (having an ISSN number is not "significant coverage" nor is it proof that this is notable). The publisher of this doesn't appear to be notable either (and doesn't have an article either), so there's no where logical to redirect to; and owing to the absence of sources it wouldn't make sense to keep it on the relevant list article (in the article see also section). So there's not much else to be done but to delete this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. A condo complex in a city with a surfeit of such. Brief mentions in reputable media such as The Globe and Mail re: its allegedly huge number of Airbnb units, but no in-depth coverage of the building or its architecture. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)