![]() |
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! 23:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:29, 5 December 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! 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
ELs on page consist of Jeff Buckley's official site (or a fansite? Not clear), a purely primary interview, and two definitely unreliable pages in IMDb and LastFM. Only other coverage I found were interviews and unreliable sites focusing solely on Tighe's relationship with Buckley, and that's after pushing through a bunch of results about other people with the name which came first. No appearance of notability beyond that. Could redirect to either Jeff Buckley, So Real (Jeff Buckley song), or Grace (Jeff Buckley album), though none seem any more viable than the others so perhaps a delete would be easier; I'm in support of either move. QuietHere ( talk) 23:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 22:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I did a WP:BEFORE check and didn’t find any reliable sources. Most likely fails WP:GNG and definitely fails WP:V. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. I have no opinion on the subject, and am completely neutral on the outcome. CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a political officeholder at the county level, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable enough for inclusion, and get to have Wikipedia articles only if they can show enough substance and sourcing to mount a credible argument that they're far more notable than most other people at that level of office -- but this shows nothing of the sort, and is just referenced to a couple of glancing namechecks of the subject's existence rather than any evidence of coverage that's substantively about him and his work.
Also, this was created in draftspace and got declined at AFC, but was then moved by its own creator with no attempt at improvement or resubmission for a second AFC review, which is not how the draft process works.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is to Keep this article. Any problems that exist should be fixed by editors instead of deleting the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The premise of this article is a giant MOS:ALLEGED and WP:WEIGHT violation. It portrays the Syrian mercenaries has an "accusation", when it has been verified by numerous sources. And the Kurdish militia are portrayed as a possibility, when that was thoroughly debunked (the Al-Monitor source clearly says "there is no direct evidence of this" and Komsomolskaya Pravda is a tabloid). Lots of important information in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was removed entirely in order to create this article. That info is best off being restored and this Allegations article deleted; there was no discussion about splitting the article. Dallavid ( talk) 18:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to the log (or the article tagged) until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
* Pppery *
it has begun...
22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:40, 5 December 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! 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion with : "This is not the SSSI, which would correctly be "Dolau Hafod a Winllan", but additionally to being incorrectly titled, there is nothing to say about this that is not already said in List of SSSIs in Ceredigion. Dolau is "meadows" and this is not a legally recognised place, so not notable per WP:GEOLAND]. Any information about the SSSI in general can and should be on the page curating SSSI information." An editor moved the page to the correct name of the SSSI but another editor removed PROD saying: " It is a 'legally recognised place' - that's what an SSSI *is*. And GEOLAND also applies to named geographic features."
The reasoning is in error. The name of the SSSI merely describes the bound of an area of special scientific interest for some reason, and rarely maps to an exact recognised or named location. Over 12% of Wales is recorded as an SSSI, and this confers no legal status per WP:GEOLAND.
Furthermore the reasoning is in error because the name of the SSSI is not a name of a featured area. It is the name of two featured areas in close proximity. Meadow land and Winllan - a vineyard. Not a named vineyard, and not contiguous with the meadows. This is two separate locations treated together in an SSSI definition because they are geographically close and relate to the same matter of interest. OS data shows neither.
So there is clearly no automatic pass per WP:GEOLAND. The real question is whether any article can be written about this. Are there any secondary sources, treatments etc? WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. Wikipedia notability is about the question of whether a page can, in principle, be written about the subject. On this subject the answer to that appears to be no, and this fails WP:N for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Any other possible redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is an overwhelming consensus expressed for Keeping this article and the only editor supporting Delete was the nominator. I would have preferred more argumentation based in policy but I can't ignore the numbers here and those arguing Keep believe GNG is met. If this AFD is a sign of future deletion discussions on similar articles, please let there be fewer aspersions cast, especially against an entire WikiProject. If there is serious disagreement over how notability is assessed on the subject of roads, an RFC might be called for rather than arguing over differences of opinion at individual AFDs which can cause other editors to avoid participating in discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Significant article that has single low info reference that fails WP:V and WP:AUD and WP:SIGCOV. Continual pushback by editors who write road articles and refuse to reference properly. Looking to get M41 (Durban) and M25 (Durban) redirected as well. Originally redirect as part of WP:NPP review by concerted effort to revert. scope_creep Talk 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because even though a majority of editors are advocating Keeping this article, there are questions about the quality of sourcing. Looking at the article's sources, it seems that most of them concern a supposed ghost that haunts this road which doesn't seem like SIGCOV. This relist can allow sources that have been mentioned in this discussion to be evaluated. Of course, this discussion can be closed whenever an admin is satisfied that there is a policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Search finds no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Band does not appear to be notable and fails to meet WP:BAND. Most of their YouTube videos have under 1,000 views and I'm not finding anything that helps to establish their notability. Previously tagged with PROD, but tag was removed by the creator of the article. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable organization. All sources seem to be routine announcements in industry publications, bare mentions, self-source, generated from press releases, etc. Google brings up nothing but directory listings and the subject's own publication. Valereee ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a general article like this. The effect of the Great Depression on each country should deserve its own article. Besides, it's already hard to define
Central Europe today. What was Central Europe during the interwar period, and why should a bunch of countries in different economic situations (e. g. Germany, Hungary and Poland) be grouped together? It's finally also worth noting everything in this article is unsourced except that The unemployment rate in Germany, Austria and Poland rose to 20% while output fell by 40%.
Not enough to sustain an article.
Super
Ψ
Dro
18:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Fictional musician, member of a virtual band. She has very little stand-alone notability, outside of some PR stuff about her becoming a "global ambassador for Jaguar Racing", there is nothing significant about her. The article has no reception section. Perhaps some stuff could warrant merging to Gorillaz#Band_members, but I don't see what supports keeping this a stand-alone article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
To quote February 2022 "Out of date and misleading article, unlikely to be resolvable as clearly no interest by editors". I agree with that sentiment. Has not had substantial edits since, and contents of article can clearly be folded into London Underground or other articles. Turini2 ( talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:ENT actor. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I have not seen any other work of this actor after this play. If you have any knowledge, write it on the page and I will be with you. Otherwise, there is a long list of actors like him in Pakistan who have acted in 4-5 dramas, so are they also famous people? M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 08:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
16:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A search of Google, GBooks, Scholar, Newspapers.com, and archive.org shows nothing that would show notability for the subject. GBooks showed the most results that weren't press releases, but they were all passing mentions. Aoidh ( talk) 13:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Prison Break characters#Sara Scofield (née Tancredi). Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fictional character, 95% of the article is the usual plot summary. WP:GNG fail. There is no analysis, just a "concept and creation" referenced to passing mentions in TV Guide. BEFORE didn't reveal much, just a bachelor thesis in Indonesian ( [18]). Perhaps redirecting to List of Prison Break characters will be a form of WP:PRESERVE we can use here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
13:01, 5 December 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! 21:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
All of the references are to company website, company YouTube or deadlinks. Two of the four are about an awards competition the company held one time, in 2011-12. Fails NCORP. David notMD ( talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
outdated, very point of viewed article 2006toyotacorrola ( talk) 09:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
11:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . The only noteworthy thing here is the Controversy part, but all of that is already part of the album article. Sricsi ( talk) 11:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Taking this to AFD after the WP:PROD was removed in good faith. My reasoning was: Does not have WP:SIGCOV to become notable. Could not find a single review WP:BEFORE nomination. The only coverage is from press-release style announcements without significant coverage to pass WP:N. Jontesta ( talk) 00:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are mixed. But it never hurts to "clean up" an article before an AFD closure, in fact, sometimes it can make a big difference in the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 05:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing how this is a notable television show. Aired for only 17 episodes (if the infobox is accurate) for a brief period of time without indication that it received any WP:SIGCOV. The citations offered are either db entries or passing mentions. Previously deleted via PROD around the time of its airing with similar concerns. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
renowned artists, and saying that the references are
international siteswithout stating how SIGCOV is met seems unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
10:41, 5 December 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.
Couldn't redirect to the suggested page because the target page was itself a redirect. So, Soft Deletion it is. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
No evidence found that this is a notable school. Fram ( talk) 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Draft:Queen of Tears. (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Only the two lead actors are confirmed to have joined the cast, no confirmed TV network, and filming has not yet started. Accireioj ( talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Preferably transferred to drafts .
Muatsem90 (
talk)
09:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija#Religion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:46, 5 December 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! 07:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
-- Lenticel ( talk) 08:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
TV drama fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.Moreover, ref 1 has a vague contact us page but no editorial policies meeting WP:RS, I could not access ref 2 (404 error), whereas the rest are obviously non-reliable. WP:BEFORE found little more, e.g., this questionable announcement on a teaser, routinely listing the cast in a source with no editorial policies as well. However, as this is upcoming, draftication might be a suitable ATD, otherwise this clearly fail WP:GNG and I am at delete. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes.Unfortunately, I don't think it helps with GNG, but thanks for your comment. VickKiang (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Two issues: entirely plot and character descriptions, and no sources. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––
FormalDude
(talk)
16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
06:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reviewers, please assess whether recent changes to the article address the concerns of the deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 ( talk) 22:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTRACK. LibStar ( talk) 04:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Unlike previous similar discussions, some plausible evidence has been provided of sources examining the topic of the list; however, as best as I can tell, it seems limited to a single clearly reliable source, which is generally considered insufficient. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/ WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.
The topic of tall buildings in Szczecin as a whole has no significant coverage that I found, so GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. The article's purpose of existence seems to be for publicity only. My search for coverage didn't find anything significant, and most things I found were about the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which is a different organization 10 times the size of this one. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTRACK and more broadly WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to statistics database entries with no prose. signed, Rosguill talk 04:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Belgium–France relations. I would have liked to see more discussion of the sources, but relisting again is a waste of time for a one-sentence article. This result is based on the current state of the article, and does not preclude a future article that is supported by good sources. Sock !votes are being ignored. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
No indication of
WP:GNG, and no context.
Alverado (
talk) 08:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC) (This account is a confirmed
sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely
Frank
Anchor
19:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per
Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_November_2022 given sock infestation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
19:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts based on the sources provided by Suriname0?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Legoktm (
talk)
04:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Having been the Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer and being present at a minor government scandal do not "warrant" a standalone article. Kevin West (politician) should be moved here, with a hatnote to the CFCWO article for this guy. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bacolod#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bislig#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Zero hits on Google News. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bisbee, Arizona. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Aerials and topos show this to be a 1950s-era subdivision. I'm not seeing any notability for it as I really can't find anything that says more than just "it's a place." Mangoe ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case a mention of the article subject is added to an appropriate redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tornadoes of 2016#Manila tornado. (non-admin closure) jp× g 03:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Completing AfD for anon. Reason for deletion is as follows.
While tornadoes in Manila are extradionarily rare, it wasn’t that destructive. All information can fit cozily in Tornadoes of 2016.143.170.105.162 (talk)
I'm neutral on the matter since this is a procedural nomination. Lenticel ( talk) 03:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:51, 5 December 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! 03:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. Searching finds company website, database entries, other non-independent things, a few passing mentions, and lots of ads selling the company products. But very little to establish notability. MB 02:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I think those advocating Keep have provided sources that address the concerns of the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:N, couldn't find anything about this topic online, most results are related to the Wikipedia page. TheManInTheBlackHat ( talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
they fail RS! If you don't know Persian, how can you assess their reliability? These are peer-reviewed academic articles published in academic journals, not a bunch of self-published web pages. You, as a Wikipedian, don't need to asses their reliability. Experts have already done that. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 06:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow editors to weigh in following sourcing that was identified which may cause a change in !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. The content shall be preserved in the page history if anyone wants to merge content into the list article. Right now that list is just a list of names, and might require splitting if it is to be expanded into a more detailed list with sections for each character. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 11:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:BEFORE only found licensed sources affiliated with the subject, or database style coverage without any significant real-world reception. Jontesta ( talk) 00:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
00:59, 5 December 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! 23:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:29, 5 December 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! 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
ELs on page consist of Jeff Buckley's official site (or a fansite? Not clear), a purely primary interview, and two definitely unreliable pages in IMDb and LastFM. Only other coverage I found were interviews and unreliable sites focusing solely on Tighe's relationship with Buckley, and that's after pushing through a bunch of results about other people with the name which came first. No appearance of notability beyond that. Could redirect to either Jeff Buckley, So Real (Jeff Buckley song), or Grace (Jeff Buckley album), though none seem any more viable than the others so perhaps a delete would be easier; I'm in support of either move. QuietHere ( talk) 23:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 22:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I did a WP:BEFORE check and didn’t find any reliable sources. Most likely fails WP:GNG and definitely fails WP:V. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. I have no opinion on the subject, and am completely neutral on the outcome. CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a political officeholder at the county level, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable enough for inclusion, and get to have Wikipedia articles only if they can show enough substance and sourcing to mount a credible argument that they're far more notable than most other people at that level of office -- but this shows nothing of the sort, and is just referenced to a couple of glancing namechecks of the subject's existence rather than any evidence of coverage that's substantively about him and his work.
Also, this was created in draftspace and got declined at AFC, but was then moved by its own creator with no attempt at improvement or resubmission for a second AFC review, which is not how the draft process works.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The consensus is to Keep this article. Any problems that exist should be fixed by editors instead of deleting the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The premise of this article is a giant MOS:ALLEGED and WP:WEIGHT violation. It portrays the Syrian mercenaries has an "accusation", when it has been verified by numerous sources. And the Kurdish militia are portrayed as a possibility, when that was thoroughly debunked (the Al-Monitor source clearly says "there is no direct evidence of this" and Komsomolskaya Pravda is a tabloid). Lots of important information in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was removed entirely in order to create this article. That info is best off being restored and this Allegations article deleted; there was no discussion about splitting the article. Dallavid ( talk) 18:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to the log (or the article tagged) until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
* Pppery *
it has begun...
22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:40, 5 December 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! 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion with : "This is not the SSSI, which would correctly be "Dolau Hafod a Winllan", but additionally to being incorrectly titled, there is nothing to say about this that is not already said in List of SSSIs in Ceredigion. Dolau is "meadows" and this is not a legally recognised place, so not notable per WP:GEOLAND]. Any information about the SSSI in general can and should be on the page curating SSSI information." An editor moved the page to the correct name of the SSSI but another editor removed PROD saying: " It is a 'legally recognised place' - that's what an SSSI *is*. And GEOLAND also applies to named geographic features."
The reasoning is in error. The name of the SSSI merely describes the bound of an area of special scientific interest for some reason, and rarely maps to an exact recognised or named location. Over 12% of Wales is recorded as an SSSI, and this confers no legal status per WP:GEOLAND.
Furthermore the reasoning is in error because the name of the SSSI is not a name of a featured area. It is the name of two featured areas in close proximity. Meadow land and Winllan - a vineyard. Not a named vineyard, and not contiguous with the meadows. This is two separate locations treated together in an SSSI definition because they are geographically close and relate to the same matter of interest. OS data shows neither.
So there is clearly no automatic pass per WP:GEOLAND. The real question is whether any article can be written about this. Are there any secondary sources, treatments etc? WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. Wikipedia notability is about the question of whether a page can, in principle, be written about the subject. On this subject the answer to that appears to be no, and this fails WP:N for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Any other possible redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is an overwhelming consensus expressed for Keeping this article and the only editor supporting Delete was the nominator. I would have preferred more argumentation based in policy but I can't ignore the numbers here and those arguing Keep believe GNG is met. If this AFD is a sign of future deletion discussions on similar articles, please let there be fewer aspersions cast, especially against an entire WikiProject. If there is serious disagreement over how notability is assessed on the subject of roads, an RFC might be called for rather than arguing over differences of opinion at individual AFDs which can cause other editors to avoid participating in discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Significant article that has single low info reference that fails WP:V and WP:AUD and WP:SIGCOV. Continual pushback by editors who write road articles and refuse to reference properly. Looking to get M41 (Durban) and M25 (Durban) redirected as well. Originally redirect as part of WP:NPP review by concerted effort to revert. scope_creep Talk 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because even though a majority of editors are advocating Keeping this article, there are questions about the quality of sourcing. Looking at the article's sources, it seems that most of them concern a supposed ghost that haunts this road which doesn't seem like SIGCOV. This relist can allow sources that have been mentioned in this discussion to be evaluated. Of course, this discussion can be closed whenever an admin is satisfied that there is a policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Search finds no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Band does not appear to be notable and fails to meet WP:BAND. Most of their YouTube videos have under 1,000 views and I'm not finding anything that helps to establish their notability. Previously tagged with PROD, but tag was removed by the creator of the article. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable organization. All sources seem to be routine announcements in industry publications, bare mentions, self-source, generated from press releases, etc. Google brings up nothing but directory listings and the subject's own publication. Valereee ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a general article like this. The effect of the Great Depression on each country should deserve its own article. Besides, it's already hard to define
Central Europe today. What was Central Europe during the interwar period, and why should a bunch of countries in different economic situations (e. g. Germany, Hungary and Poland) be grouped together? It's finally also worth noting everything in this article is unsourced except that The unemployment rate in Germany, Austria and Poland rose to 20% while output fell by 40%.
Not enough to sustain an article.
Super
Ψ
Dro
18:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Fictional musician, member of a virtual band. She has very little stand-alone notability, outside of some PR stuff about her becoming a "global ambassador for Jaguar Racing", there is nothing significant about her. The article has no reception section. Perhaps some stuff could warrant merging to Gorillaz#Band_members, but I don't see what supports keeping this a stand-alone article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
To quote February 2022 "Out of date and misleading article, unlikely to be resolvable as clearly no interest by editors". I agree with that sentiment. Has not had substantial edits since, and contents of article can clearly be folded into London Underground or other articles. Turini2 ( talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:ENT actor. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I have not seen any other work of this actor after this play. If you have any knowledge, write it on the page and I will be with you. Otherwise, there is a long list of actors like him in Pakistan who have acted in 4-5 dramas, so are they also famous people? M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 08:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
16:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A search of Google, GBooks, Scholar, Newspapers.com, and archive.org shows nothing that would show notability for the subject. GBooks showed the most results that weren't press releases, but they were all passing mentions. Aoidh ( talk) 13:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Prison Break characters#Sara Scofield (née Tancredi). Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fictional character, 95% of the article is the usual plot summary. WP:GNG fail. There is no analysis, just a "concept and creation" referenced to passing mentions in TV Guide. BEFORE didn't reveal much, just a bachelor thesis in Indonesian ( [18]). Perhaps redirecting to List of Prison Break characters will be a form of WP:PRESERVE we can use here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
13:01, 5 December 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! 21:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
All of the references are to company website, company YouTube or deadlinks. Two of the four are about an awards competition the company held one time, in 2011-12. Fails NCORP. David notMD ( talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
outdated, very point of viewed article 2006toyotacorrola ( talk) 09:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
11:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . The only noteworthy thing here is the Controversy part, but all of that is already part of the album article. Sricsi ( talk) 11:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Taking this to AFD after the WP:PROD was removed in good faith. My reasoning was: Does not have WP:SIGCOV to become notable. Could not find a single review WP:BEFORE nomination. The only coverage is from press-release style announcements without significant coverage to pass WP:N. Jontesta ( talk) 00:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are mixed. But it never hurts to "clean up" an article before an AFD closure, in fact, sometimes it can make a big difference in the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. – Joe ( talk) 05:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing how this is a notable television show. Aired for only 17 episodes (if the infobox is accurate) for a brief period of time without indication that it received any WP:SIGCOV. The citations offered are either db entries or passing mentions. Previously deleted via PROD around the time of its airing with similar concerns. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
renowned artists, and saying that the references are
international siteswithout stating how SIGCOV is met seems unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
10:41, 5 December 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.
Couldn't redirect to the suggested page because the target page was itself a redirect. So, Soft Deletion it is. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
No evidence found that this is a notable school. Fram ( talk) 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Draft:Queen of Tears. (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Only the two lead actors are confirmed to have joined the cast, no confirmed TV network, and filming has not yet started. Accireioj ( talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Preferably transferred to drafts .
Muatsem90 (
talk)
09:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija#Religion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:46, 5 December 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! 07:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
-- Lenticel ( talk) 08:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
TV drama fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.Moreover, ref 1 has a vague contact us page but no editorial policies meeting WP:RS, I could not access ref 2 (404 error), whereas the rest are obviously non-reliable. WP:BEFORE found little more, e.g., this questionable announcement on a teaser, routinely listing the cast in a source with no editorial policies as well. However, as this is upcoming, draftication might be a suitable ATD, otherwise this clearly fail WP:GNG and I am at delete. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes.Unfortunately, I don't think it helps with GNG, but thanks for your comment. VickKiang (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Two issues: entirely plot and character descriptions, and no sources. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––
FormalDude
(talk)
16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
06:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reviewers, please assess whether recent changes to the article address the concerns of the deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 ( talk) 22:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTRACK. LibStar ( talk) 04:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Unlike previous similar discussions, some plausible evidence has been provided of sources examining the topic of the list; however, as best as I can tell, it seems limited to a single clearly reliable source, which is generally considered insufficient. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/ WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.
The topic of tall buildings in Szczecin as a whole has no significant coverage that I found, so GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. The article's purpose of existence seems to be for publicity only. My search for coverage didn't find anything significant, and most things I found were about the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which is a different organization 10 times the size of this one. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTRACK and more broadly WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to statistics database entries with no prose. signed, Rosguill talk 04:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Belgium–France relations. I would have liked to see more discussion of the sources, but relisting again is a waste of time for a one-sentence article. This result is based on the current state of the article, and does not preclude a future article that is supported by good sources. Sock !votes are being ignored. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
No indication of
WP:GNG, and no context.
Alverado (
talk) 08:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC) (This account is a confirmed
sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely
Frank
Anchor
19:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per
Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_November_2022 given sock infestation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
19:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts based on the sources provided by Suriname0?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Legoktm (
talk)
04:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Having been the Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer and being present at a minor government scandal do not "warrant" a standalone article. Kevin West (politician) should be moved here, with a hatnote to the CFCWO article for this guy. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bacolod#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bislig#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Zero hits on Google News. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bisbee, Arizona. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Aerials and topos show this to be a 1950s-era subdivision. I'm not seeing any notability for it as I really can't find anything that says more than just "it's a place." Mangoe ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case a mention of the article subject is added to an appropriate redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tornadoes of 2016#Manila tornado. (non-admin closure) jp× g 03:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Completing AfD for anon. Reason for deletion is as follows.
While tornadoes in Manila are extradionarily rare, it wasn’t that destructive. All information can fit cozily in Tornadoes of 2016.143.170.105.162 (talk)
I'm neutral on the matter since this is a procedural nomination. Lenticel ( talk) 03:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:51, 5 December 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! 03:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. Searching finds company website, database entries, other non-independent things, a few passing mentions, and lots of ads selling the company products. But very little to establish notability. MB 02:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I think those advocating Keep have provided sources that address the concerns of the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:N, couldn't find anything about this topic online, most results are related to the Wikipedia page. TheManInTheBlackHat ( talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
they fail RS! If you don't know Persian, how can you assess their reliability? These are peer-reviewed academic articles published in academic journals, not a bunch of self-published web pages. You, as a Wikipedian, don't need to asses their reliability. Experts have already done that. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 06:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow editors to weigh in following sourcing that was identified which may cause a change in !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. The content shall be preserved in the page history if anyone wants to merge content into the list article. Right now that list is just a list of names, and might require splitting if it is to be expanded into a more detailed list with sections for each character. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 11:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:BEFORE only found licensed sources affiliated with the subject, or database style coverage without any significant real-world reception. Jontesta ( talk) 00:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
00:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)