![]() |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Seemingly non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Article has been edited by multiple users who seem to be tied to Barone, one of whom admitted they were "part of a development group" which created the article. TraderCharlotte ( talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Small and unknown local group without the slightest relevance. The page, devoid of sources, is written in two lines and merely states that this group existed. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Keep after rewriting article and removing resume-like content. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe this person meets the notability guidelines for an article. Not only is the article written like a resume, but a cursory Google search only brings up co-authored/ university course books and his faculty page. Lindsey40186 ( talk) 18:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Did a Google search and nothing useful came up. Even if something's found, I think this article would still have to be deleted per WP:TNT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to review the work done on this article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Squeaks by with Weak Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources don't come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. –– FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The work of Silent Dreams studio is a low-budget product, so there is nothing to expect from it graphic fireworks. The storyline and exploration of the world are presented here on boards with static, two-dimensional graphicsand
but it is intended for a younger, casual audience). However, its description is also long enough to be considered significant probably. I don't think it's an RS, but it's listed as so in WP:VGRS, so it's hence a likely RS that is probably SIGCOV. In this case, we have 2 refs counting to GNG, so it's very borderline, but I'm open to either merging or keeping. IMHO, after a couple of days this could be closed as keep. Many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get firmer consensus to redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a stronger move now to Keep, rather than redirect or merge this article. Let's give it a little more time to solidify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability; fails WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 ( talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going through this article and saw that the subject is failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, as the references are about his breakup, and relationship. According to GNG the subject should have in-depth coverages from reliable sources. But the subject doesn't have a single source which is in-depth and reliable. And according to me the reviewer of the article should be more sensitive because the reviewer reviewed the article after 3 minutes right after the editor finished the article creation. So i thing the reviewer User:Fitindia should be more sensitive during the time of reviewing article. As he has 70k + edit count. Nomadwikiholic ( talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Deep Freeze Mice. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No references (RS) found to support wide coverage for notability. There are references about a tree called Krishnasura [1], but not the asura king. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Democrats of the Left. This article is unsourced so it Merger didn't seem like a feasible option. Still, some reader might use this name as a search term and it's good to point them to an article where this group is mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Very small and unknown political group; from the page, written in four lines and devoid of sources, no encyclopedic relevance can be deduced. It could be at most integrated into the "Factions" section of the " Democrats of the Left" page. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No references Rathfelder ( talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
but it's the job of people who want to keep it to do that.Absolutely not! ALL Wikipedia editors are equal and AfDd articles are NOT held hostage by a nominating class until a lower class of Wikipedian fixes an article! gidonb ( talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) Ovinus ( talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Long-ago contested PROD. A village amateur group; no evidence of NORG-level notability that I could find. Per Guliolopez, suggest redirect to Knockbridge#Sport. Ovinus ( talk) 21:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Article about an entrepreneur, who seems to have invented a musical instrument; Article has been tagged as needing more sources since 2020. I am sorry sto say so: Yes, Mr. Lamb has had an idea, and now has a company that markets this idea. So do many other entrepreneurs. I do ont see from the description in the article, how the person is notable. In addition: A quick google search did not yield independent relaialbe sources. In short, I propose this article be deleted. Eptalon ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to European Taekwondo Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This topic sounds like it ought to be notable, but it’s sourced only to a database and I can’t find any in depth coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 12:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect as an option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Biography of a smalltown mayor, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, and must be shown to pass
WP:GNG on the sourcing -- and no, the fact that Leaside became a neighbourhood of
Toronto 30 years after Nealson's term as mayor of Leaside ended does not mean that Nealson gets an "inherent" notability freebie on "Leaside became part of Toronto + mayors of Toronto would be notable = mayors of Leaside are notable" grounds, because a mayor's notability is contingent on the sourcing and substance present in the article and not just on a "some cities' mayors get an automatic inclusion freebie" basis.
But the sourcing here isn't establishing that she would pass GNG; the footnotes are a photograph, a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article on the broad phenomenon of women in municipal politics, and one
blog article about the time she ran and lost against another woman -- which means there's only one source here that's actually about Beth Nealson in any non-trivial sense, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability on this basis.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting also that the article is very different to the one deleted four years ago. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
In Win
In Win Development, run-of-the-mill computer case and computer power supply company. This draft reads like an advertisement, and does not refer to any significant coverage by third parties. I put Notability and Tone tags on the article, which were reverted with the edit summary: "Where is the advertising? Point out the problems on the talk page instead of drive-by tagging". I haven't asked the author about COI. I haven't read the 2018 article, but this article doesn't appear to focus on anything since 2018, so that the 2018 AFD should be presumptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources mostly user generated. Only one review. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 18:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There are only three participants after two relists, and I don't see more people coming because the discussion has burned out. The opinions are evenly split. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because for the same reason:
These pages clearly fail WP:NLIST. I have no clue how they got past administrators originally. Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Thank you Nigej and wjemather for your responses. Just to be clear, could we confirm for administrators that we want to delete these list pages and put this information on the main page (i.e. PGA Cup). Thanks, Oogglywoogly ( talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see confirmation, is there a proposal to merge these two articles to
PGA Cup? I've read over the discussion but a lot of it is about list standards and not about the outcome you are seeking here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International Federation of Football History & Statistics. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This award has not been covered in depth by independent reliable sources. There are brief mentions of the award by blogs and fansites but no coverage by reputable news organizations. As of now the article is just a collection of stats and Wikipedia is not just stats. You will find no mention of this award from organizations like the BBC or The Guardian.
Previously I redirected this article along with several other obscure IFFHS awards but this has been reverted so I am submitting this article now for discussion. Most of the other articles in Category:International Federation of Football History & Statistics have similarly dubious notability. Eóin ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
all sources can be found on their website(presumably not realizing that primary sources cannot establish notability). In doing so, the responsibility falls on them to substantiate their claims with suitable sources, and it has not been met here. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I found no significant coverage of this font. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Essentially, this man took care of his tiny Jewish community, decimated by the Holocaust and emigration. While a laudable pursuit, nothing here really indicates notability as contemplated by WP:NBIO. Yes, he won presidential medals in two countries — but both are routine awards handed out to numerous people every year, hardly rising to the “well-known and significant award or honor” standard set by WP:ANYBIO. Other than that, there isn’t much. I won’t go into every single reference in the article, but for example, this or this doesn’t mention Ausch at all, while this is a phone book entry (trivial mention). What is glaringly lacking is “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. — Biruitorul Talk 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails NSPORTS and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
16:43, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Incal. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
A pnp RPG based on a French comic book series. I've added the sole ref it has now, but (the ref) reads like a press release, and I couldn't locate anything better. No fr interwiki. Unless someone can dig better sources, a ~1 sentence merge with the ref I found and redirect to The Incal might be best? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Star Wreck. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This should have ended as merge in prior AfD (2010), given the votes (one Merge and Redirect, one Keep or Merge). Anyway, this fails WP:GNG, references are limited to publisher page and a passing mention (single sentence) in a column on games on a website of unclear reliability. BEFORE is not showing anything (although there's a tiny chance RS exist in Finnish - although there is no interwiki). The topic is currently mentioned as a see also in Star_Wreck, arguably it should have a sentence or two about in in the main body - but stand alone article does not seem warranted due to lack of notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
He also wrote the "Out of the Box" column, initially for the GamingReport, and later for IndiePressRevolution.. So I think this "award" is nothing widely recognized. All that said, I'm rather far from my domain of expertise here. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close - consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. No support found for arguments given for deletion. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Article on term that has little to no actual real world presence / relevance outside of a very niche audience on Twitter and, at best, minor humor articles on other websites. Simply put, while I hate to be a downer to a funny page - legitimizing phrases like "Antoine Lavoisier, noted as history's first wife guy." via having a Wikipedia article would indicate this website has about the same threshold for relevance as KnowYourMeme. As a further note, the popular (And admittedly normally quite good) twitter account Depths of Wikipedia has recently posted the article, so expect some recent attention to the article. *I'd also like to edit in to note that, in the replies of the aforementioned tweet there are users calling to 'defend the article' so, this may not be the most impartial time for a deletion nomination. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. North America 1000 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Poorly-referenced promo article on a non-notable filmmaker. Cites all of one source, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media etc. accounts. Was draftified, but creator insists on moving to main space. Earlier speedy request was declined, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO (not to mention WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Biography seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
"Tony Wright" sleep
has more I don't want to ref bomb this page or the article but there has been a steady drum beat of coverage because there are only a handful of people claiming to have lasted this long without sleep and his claim is credible-enough for researchers it was
"live streamed from a bar in Penzances" and Wright has gone on to do
sleep research experiments at Manchester University and he's written a book about it, this was not a 1-time stunt. --
Green
C
15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
10:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 14:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NSEASONS. Many of the citations provided are from the club itself or from the governing bodies for the sport, so they're not independent so I see no case for WP:GNG. My PROD was removed by the article's author and I have doubts the subject will ever be notable so draftify would not be an option. Chris Troutman ( talk) 12:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nobody has attempted to refute the relevance of the sources added after the nomination. Sandstein 14:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
With virtually no inline citations, this article makes a number of large and very sweeping claims that are hard to verify - particularly as the citation and sourcing styles are obfuscatory. Three interviews (Jerusalem Post, Maariv and Israel Today) in mainstream media and a lot of incidental mentions in incidental media are presented as references but they're not enough for notability to be established for what is clearly a partisan PR exercise that simply doesn't belong in this unverified and unverifiable state on Wikipedia. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Very poor sources and fails to meet requirements of WP:NACTOR Velella Velella Talk 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The term "rubel polski", "polski rubel", don't seem to exist in Polish literature (I checked on Google Books and Scholar). This article has no Polish interwiki, nor could I find this term anywhere in Polish Wikipedia. English term is very rare. This notes that such a concept was floated in 1916 but never realized. This Polish work notes that from 1841 Russian rouble started to replace the older Polish currency (Poland was at that time mostly occupied or puppetized by Russia). The best treatment we have is Russian Wikipedia which pretty much confirms that this was just a note issued by the Polish Bank for about two decades: ru:Рубль Польского банка. Given that the concept doesn't even seem to have an established name in Polish or English, notability of this is dubious (there is a slight chance Russian sources cover this in depth). Overall, I have serious concern this is a poorly referenced mistinterpretation of some other sources, such as a general reference to the fact that Congress Poland used roubles - a fact which doesn't need a dedicated article, and can be mentioned under Congress_Poland#Economy. In other words, there never was such a thing as a "Polish rouble" (the term is hardly used), instead there were regular roubles issued by Bank of Poland in Congress Poland for ~2 decades (perhaps they were visibly distingushable and are of interest to collectors, but even that isn't made apparent from the sources I found and is just my speculation). I'll ping User:Volunteer Marek who IIRC is interested in Polish economic history. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Wikilinks appear to link to the wrong works, no independent sources at all, almost no media coverage, even the personal website is a dead link. Chagropango ( talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
|via=
the actual source is Midnight Zoo journal. ISFDB is useful as a convenience and verifiability link, in this case there is no reason to think the data is wrong. --
Green
C
04:29, 11 August 2022 (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 10:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
i'm turning up empty-handed on reliable sources covering this significantly.
also, fails
wp:nplace. although the last point states that Named natural features are often notable
, there's no real information beyond statistics and coordinates
that i can find in a
wp:before search.
lettherebedarklight,
晚安,
おやすみなさい,
ping me when replying
09:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
a small lake", with some bog nearby. I'd vote Merge into List of raised and transitional bogs of Switzerland, but the article basically contains no information not already available there. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. Reading Beans ( talk) 09:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Several of the "sources" are broken links - did those sources ever exist? Were they credible if they ever did exist? And of the real sources, many of them are not reliable sources (Adventuresofabeautyqueen.com? Fabafterfifty.co.uk? Wordpress blogs as Wikipedia sources, really? ) or they are just local news making minimal remarks on local winners. The sports.news.am one isn't about Mrs. Globe at all. The Business Insider one isn't even about any pageant, it's about a Russian model with 1 sentence mentioning she was a former Mrs. Globe, and same with the digitalmuscle.com one where it's about a woman with a mention that she had a history of holding a variety of Mrs. Globe titles. There are dozens of beauty pageants out there and they don't all deserve a Wikipedia article just because they claimed some fancy title like "Globe". DownAndUp ( talk) 03:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Most of the "sources" are broken links - did those sources ever exist? Of the real sources, most of them aren't even about Mrs. Australia Globe but just about Mrs. Globe in general. At best, some of the sources can be merged into the Mrs. Globe article but I don't really see that being necessary either. The titleholders tables are also a mess with many missing years and no info on placements or special awards - clearly not notable enough for any sources to speak about those things. Seems like an easy delete to me. DownAndUp ( talk) 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:17, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find significant coverage. The hit I got seems to be promotional puffs. Reading Beans ( talk) 06:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions assert that sources exist, but do not cite them, which makes it impossible to assess the asserted notability of the topic. Sandstein 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Small and unknown communist party without the slightest relevance. The page, devoid of sources, is written in two lines and merely states that this group existed. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This didn't happen, Iran didn't participate at the World Athletics Championships. two guys qualified but they were only in the original entry list, none of them appeared in the start list, one of them denied visa and the other one withdrew himself Sports2021 ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTDATABASE, fails WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.Please explain and specify why this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLalgo ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:36, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 04:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 04:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. Small four-location bakery chain in Texas. The refs are all either self-published (company website), not independent (an interview), or routine local coverage in the D/FW area. MB 03:40, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 04:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
this was a hijacked redirect of a non-notbale businessman. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2022. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT – this train crash happened two months ago, and as far as I can tell, has no lasting coverage (i.e., beyond routine news reporting) or far-reaching impact. Complex/ Rational 01:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Meters ( talk) 05:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
A stub about an athelete who competed in one Olympic Game, in one team event. Made the rowing 8s final via the Repechage but finished out of medals. Simply competing, even if it had been an individual event, does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, thus he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. He had some success with the US team rowing in junior events. I have been unable to find any independent indepth coverage of him to show he meets WP:BIO Meters ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Demographics of San Francisco. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Not any reason to think the Armenian segment of the population of San Francisco is notable. This should be deleted, or whatever is useable can be merged with Demographics of San Francisco. Bruxton ( talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
By Community Contributor", which leaves too few sources for a standalone article. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There seems to have been a single article appropriate for use in the article published by both CNN and Fortune back in the year 2000, but I can't find any other coverage that we can use. The article seems highly promotional, and while that isn't a rationale for deletion, I suspect either the article subject or their followers might have edited it. TraderCharlotte ( talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:23, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Seemingly non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Article has been edited by multiple users who seem to be tied to Barone, one of whom admitted they were "part of a development group" which created the article. TraderCharlotte ( talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Small and unknown local group without the slightest relevance. The page, devoid of sources, is written in two lines and merely states that this group existed. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Keep after rewriting article and removing resume-like content. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe this person meets the notability guidelines for an article. Not only is the article written like a resume, but a cursory Google search only brings up co-authored/ university course books and his faculty page. Lindsey40186 ( talk) 18:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Did a Google search and nothing useful came up. Even if something's found, I think this article would still have to be deleted per WP:TNT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to review the work done on this article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Squeaks by with Weak Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources don't come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. –– FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The work of Silent Dreams studio is a low-budget product, so there is nothing to expect from it graphic fireworks. The storyline and exploration of the world are presented here on boards with static, two-dimensional graphicsand
but it is intended for a younger, casual audience). However, its description is also long enough to be considered significant probably. I don't think it's an RS, but it's listed as so in WP:VGRS, so it's hence a likely RS that is probably SIGCOV. In this case, we have 2 refs counting to GNG, so it's very borderline, but I'm open to either merging or keeping. IMHO, after a couple of days this could be closed as keep. Many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get firmer consensus to redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a stronger move now to Keep, rather than redirect or merge this article. Let's give it a little more time to solidify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability; fails WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 ( talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going through this article and saw that the subject is failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, as the references are about his breakup, and relationship. According to GNG the subject should have in-depth coverages from reliable sources. But the subject doesn't have a single source which is in-depth and reliable. And according to me the reviewer of the article should be more sensitive because the reviewer reviewed the article after 3 minutes right after the editor finished the article creation. So i thing the reviewer User:Fitindia should be more sensitive during the time of reviewing article. As he has 70k + edit count. Nomadwikiholic ( talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to The Deep Freeze Mice. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No references (RS) found to support wide coverage for notability. There are references about a tree called Krishnasura [1], but not the asura king. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Democrats of the Left. This article is unsourced so it Merger didn't seem like a feasible option. Still, some reader might use this name as a search term and it's good to point them to an article where this group is mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Very small and unknown political group; from the page, written in four lines and devoid of sources, no encyclopedic relevance can be deduced. It could be at most integrated into the "Factions" section of the " Democrats of the Left" page. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No references Rathfelder ( talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
but it's the job of people who want to keep it to do that.Absolutely not! ALL Wikipedia editors are equal and AfDd articles are NOT held hostage by a nominating class until a lower class of Wikipedian fixes an article! gidonb ( talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) Ovinus ( talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Long-ago contested PROD. A village amateur group; no evidence of NORG-level notability that I could find. Per Guliolopez, suggest redirect to Knockbridge#Sport. Ovinus ( talk) 21:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Article about an entrepreneur, who seems to have invented a musical instrument; Article has been tagged as needing more sources since 2020. I am sorry sto say so: Yes, Mr. Lamb has had an idea, and now has a company that markets this idea. So do many other entrepreneurs. I do ont see from the description in the article, how the person is notable. In addition: A quick google search did not yield independent relaialbe sources. In short, I propose this article be deleted. Eptalon ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to European Taekwondo Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This topic sounds like it ought to be notable, but it’s sourced only to a database and I can’t find any in depth coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 12:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect as an option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Biography of a smalltown mayor, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, and must be shown to pass
WP:GNG on the sourcing -- and no, the fact that Leaside became a neighbourhood of
Toronto 30 years after Nealson's term as mayor of Leaside ended does not mean that Nealson gets an "inherent" notability freebie on "Leaside became part of Toronto + mayors of Toronto would be notable = mayors of Leaside are notable" grounds, because a mayor's notability is contingent on the sourcing and substance present in the article and not just on a "some cities' mayors get an automatic inclusion freebie" basis.
But the sourcing here isn't establishing that she would pass GNG; the footnotes are a photograph, a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article on the broad phenomenon of women in municipal politics, and one
blog article about the time she ran and lost against another woman -- which means there's only one source here that's actually about Beth Nealson in any non-trivial sense, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability on this basis.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting also that the article is very different to the one deleted four years ago. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
In Win
In Win Development, run-of-the-mill computer case and computer power supply company. This draft reads like an advertisement, and does not refer to any significant coverage by third parties. I put Notability and Tone tags on the article, which were reverted with the edit summary: "Where is the advertising? Point out the problems on the talk page instead of drive-by tagging". I haven't asked the author about COI. I haven't read the 2018 article, but this article doesn't appear to focus on anything since 2018, so that the 2018 AFD should be presumptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources mostly user generated. Only one review. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 18:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There are only three participants after two relists, and I don't see more people coming because the discussion has burned out. The opinions are evenly split. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because for the same reason:
These pages clearly fail WP:NLIST. I have no clue how they got past administrators originally. Oogglywoogly ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Thank you Nigej and wjemather for your responses. Just to be clear, could we confirm for administrators that we want to delete these list pages and put this information on the main page (i.e. PGA Cup). Thanks, Oogglywoogly ( talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see confirmation, is there a proposal to merge these two articles to
PGA Cup? I've read over the discussion but a lot of it is about list standards and not about the outcome you are seeking here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International Federation of Football History & Statistics. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This award has not been covered in depth by independent reliable sources. There are brief mentions of the award by blogs and fansites but no coverage by reputable news organizations. As of now the article is just a collection of stats and Wikipedia is not just stats. You will find no mention of this award from organizations like the BBC or The Guardian.
Previously I redirected this article along with several other obscure IFFHS awards but this has been reverted so I am submitting this article now for discussion. Most of the other articles in Category:International Federation of Football History & Statistics have similarly dubious notability. Eóin ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
all sources can be found on their website(presumably not realizing that primary sources cannot establish notability). In doing so, the responsibility falls on them to substantiate their claims with suitable sources, and it has not been met here. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I found no significant coverage of this font. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Essentially, this man took care of his tiny Jewish community, decimated by the Holocaust and emigration. While a laudable pursuit, nothing here really indicates notability as contemplated by WP:NBIO. Yes, he won presidential medals in two countries — but both are routine awards handed out to numerous people every year, hardly rising to the “well-known and significant award or honor” standard set by WP:ANYBIO. Other than that, there isn’t much. I won’t go into every single reference in the article, but for example, this or this doesn’t mention Ausch at all, while this is a phone book entry (trivial mention). What is glaringly lacking is “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. — Biruitorul Talk 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails NSPORTS and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
16:43, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Incal. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
A pnp RPG based on a French comic book series. I've added the sole ref it has now, but (the ref) reads like a press release, and I couldn't locate anything better. No fr interwiki. Unless someone can dig better sources, a ~1 sentence merge with the ref I found and redirect to The Incal might be best? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Star Wreck. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This should have ended as merge in prior AfD (2010), given the votes (one Merge and Redirect, one Keep or Merge). Anyway, this fails WP:GNG, references are limited to publisher page and a passing mention (single sentence) in a column on games on a website of unclear reliability. BEFORE is not showing anything (although there's a tiny chance RS exist in Finnish - although there is no interwiki). The topic is currently mentioned as a see also in Star_Wreck, arguably it should have a sentence or two about in in the main body - but stand alone article does not seem warranted due to lack of notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
He also wrote the "Out of the Box" column, initially for the GamingReport, and later for IndiePressRevolution.. So I think this "award" is nothing widely recognized. All that said, I'm rather far from my domain of expertise here. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close - consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. No support found for arguments given for deletion. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Article on term that has little to no actual real world presence / relevance outside of a very niche audience on Twitter and, at best, minor humor articles on other websites. Simply put, while I hate to be a downer to a funny page - legitimizing phrases like "Antoine Lavoisier, noted as history's first wife guy." via having a Wikipedia article would indicate this website has about the same threshold for relevance as KnowYourMeme. As a further note, the popular (And admittedly normally quite good) twitter account Depths of Wikipedia has recently posted the article, so expect some recent attention to the article. *I'd also like to edit in to note that, in the replies of the aforementioned tweet there are users calling to 'defend the article' so, this may not be the most impartial time for a deletion nomination. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. North America 1000 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Poorly-referenced promo article on a non-notable filmmaker. Cites all of one source, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media etc. accounts. Was draftified, but creator insists on moving to main space. Earlier speedy request was declined, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO (not to mention WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Biography seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
"Tony Wright" sleep
has more I don't want to ref bomb this page or the article but there has been a steady drum beat of coverage because there are only a handful of people claiming to have lasted this long without sleep and his claim is credible-enough for researchers it was
"live streamed from a bar in Penzances" and Wright has gone on to do
sleep research experiments at Manchester University and he's written a book about it, this was not a 1-time stunt. --
Green
C
15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
10:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 14:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NSEASONS. Many of the citations provided are from the club itself or from the governing bodies for the sport, so they're not independent so I see no case for WP:GNG. My PROD was removed by the article's author and I have doubts the subject will ever be notable so draftify would not be an option. Chris Troutman ( talk) 12:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nobody has attempted to refute the relevance of the sources added after the nomination. Sandstein 14:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
With virtually no inline citations, this article makes a number of large and very sweeping claims that are hard to verify - particularly as the citation and sourcing styles are obfuscatory. Three interviews (Jerusalem Post, Maariv and Israel Today) in mainstream media and a lot of incidental mentions in incidental media are presented as references but they're not enough for notability to be established for what is clearly a partisan PR exercise that simply doesn't belong in this unverified and unverifiable state on Wikipedia. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Very poor sources and fails to meet requirements of WP:NACTOR Velella Velella Talk 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The term "rubel polski", "polski rubel", don't seem to exist in Polish literature (I checked on Google Books and Scholar). This article has no Polish interwiki, nor could I find this term anywhere in Polish Wikipedia. English term is very rare. This notes that such a concept was floated in 1916 but never realized. This Polish work notes that from 1841 Russian rouble started to replace the older Polish currency (Poland was at that time mostly occupied or puppetized by Russia). The best treatment we have is Russian Wikipedia which pretty much confirms that this was just a note issued by the Polish Bank for about two decades: ru:Рубль Польского банка. Given that the concept doesn't even seem to have an established name in Polish or English, notability of this is dubious (there is a slight chance Russian sources cover this in depth). Overall, I have serious concern this is a poorly referenced mistinterpretation of some other sources, such as a general reference to the fact that Congress Poland used roubles - a fact which doesn't need a dedicated article, and can be mentioned under Congress_Poland#Economy. In other words, there never was such a thing as a "Polish rouble" (the term is hardly used), instead there were regular roubles issued by Bank of Poland in Congress Poland for ~2 decades (perhaps they were visibly distingushable and are of interest to collectors, but even that isn't made apparent from the sources I found and is just my speculation). I'll ping User:Volunteer Marek who IIRC is interested in Polish economic history. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Wikilinks appear to link to the wrong works, no independent sources at all, almost no media coverage, even the personal website is a dead link. Chagropango ( talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
|via=
the actual source is Midnight Zoo journal. ISFDB is useful as a convenience and verifiability link, in this case there is no reason to think the data is wrong. --
Green
C
04:29, 11 August 2022 (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 10:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
i'm turning up empty-handed on reliable sources covering this significantly.
also, fails
wp:nplace. although the last point states that Named natural features are often notable
, there's no real information beyond statistics and coordinates
that i can find in a
wp:before search.
lettherebedarklight,
晚安,
おやすみなさい,
ping me when replying
09:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
a small lake", with some bog nearby. I'd vote Merge into List of raised and transitional bogs of Switzerland, but the article basically contains no information not already available there. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. Reading Beans ( talk) 09:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Several of the "sources" are broken links - did those sources ever exist? Were they credible if they ever did exist? And of the real sources, many of them are not reliable sources (Adventuresofabeautyqueen.com? Fabafterfifty.co.uk? Wordpress blogs as Wikipedia sources, really? ) or they are just local news making minimal remarks on local winners. The sports.news.am one isn't about Mrs. Globe at all. The Business Insider one isn't even about any pageant, it's about a Russian model with 1 sentence mentioning she was a former Mrs. Globe, and same with the digitalmuscle.com one where it's about a woman with a mention that she had a history of holding a variety of Mrs. Globe titles. There are dozens of beauty pageants out there and they don't all deserve a Wikipedia article just because they claimed some fancy title like "Globe". DownAndUp ( talk) 03:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Most of the "sources" are broken links - did those sources ever exist? Of the real sources, most of them aren't even about Mrs. Australia Globe but just about Mrs. Globe in general. At best, some of the sources can be merged into the Mrs. Globe article but I don't really see that being necessary either. The titleholders tables are also a mess with many missing years and no info on placements or special awards - clearly not notable enough for any sources to speak about those things. Seems like an easy delete to me. DownAndUp ( talk) 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:17, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find significant coverage. The hit I got seems to be promotional puffs. Reading Beans ( talk) 06:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions assert that sources exist, but do not cite them, which makes it impossible to assess the asserted notability of the topic. Sandstein 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Small and unknown communist party without the slightest relevance. The page, devoid of sources, is written in two lines and merely states that this group existed. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This didn't happen, Iran didn't participate at the World Athletics Championships. two guys qualified but they were only in the original entry list, none of them appeared in the start list, one of them denied visa and the other one withdrew himself Sports2021 ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTDATABASE, fails WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.Please explain and specify why this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLalgo ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:36, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 04:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 04:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. Small four-location bakery chain in Texas. The refs are all either self-published (company website), not independent (an interview), or routine local coverage in the D/FW area. MB 03:40, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 04:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
this was a hijacked redirect of a non-notbale businessman. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2022. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT – this train crash happened two months ago, and as far as I can tell, has no lasting coverage (i.e., beyond routine news reporting) or far-reaching impact. Complex/ Rational 01:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Meters ( talk) 05:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
A stub about an athelete who competed in one Olympic Game, in one team event. Made the rowing 8s final via the Repechage but finished out of medals. Simply competing, even if it had been an individual event, does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, thus he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. He had some success with the US team rowing in junior events. I have been unable to find any independent indepth coverage of him to show he meets WP:BIO Meters ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Demographics of San Francisco. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Not any reason to think the Armenian segment of the population of San Francisco is notable. This should be deleted, or whatever is useable can be merged with Demographics of San Francisco. Bruxton ( talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
By Community Contributor", which leaves too few sources for a standalone article. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There seems to have been a single article appropriate for use in the article published by both CNN and Fortune back in the year 2000, but I can't find any other coverage that we can use. The article seems highly promotional, and while that isn't a rationale for deletion, I suspect either the article subject or their followers might have edited it. TraderCharlotte ( talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:23, 7 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)