![]() |
The result was speedily deleted by Liz under the G5 criterion. (See SPI.) (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Non notable organization that doesn’t meet WP:NCORP and also do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rock Scully. In the absence of any other input, I'm accepting the suggested redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in my work to improve neo-pagan subjects, I've found another article that fails WP:NAUTHOR.
The only reliable secondary sources are the two "additional sources" presented at the bottom - one is a passing mention about the Eugene, OR, fair, and the other is an interview about....talking to animals.
Google News and newspapers.com had only passing mentions. Google search had only one find, an interview on KPFA (a public radio station in Berkeley, CA). Jstor and Google Scholar had nothing of note and Google Books were entirely her own books.
Also a few brief interviews with her when her husband died. As we know, Wikipedia articles aren't
WP:INHERITED - and yes, that includes
Deadheads.
Finally, a interesting little comment on the talk page by an editor who re-created the article after it was deleted the first time.
Thanks for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain ( talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a good number of passing mentions in reliable sources, but I found nothing passing WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 22:06, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced. Seems to be a WP:MILL shopping center with a theater, big-box, stores, restaurants. Searching finds some routine local coverage about the changes of ownership, but not really the significant in-depth coverage needed for GNG. MB 21:47, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I tried a before search, and got pages of Russian wrestlers and Russian social media. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:46, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Advertorialized
WP:BLP of a writer and activist, not
properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or activists. The notability claim here is essentially that he and his work exist, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie per se -- the notability test is not the things the article says, but the amount of
reliable source media coverage that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. But this is referenced almost entirely to
primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all, with the exception of two brief glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in news stories about other things, which is not the kind of media coverage we're looking for. (We need coverage in which he is the subject being discussed, not coverage in which he's a provider of an opinion about some other subject.)
This is also a clearcut
conflict of interest, as based on the usernames he and
Mohamed Sherif Kamel (also up for AFD) essentially played the "I'll post the article about you and you post the article about me, so that we can't be accused of violating
WP:AUTOBIO" game, which is not an acceptable bypass of our rules.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Ehab Lotayef from having to be referenced considerably better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Group was created specifically for their Junior Eurovision performance and broke up within a couple years. Does not meet inclusion criteria in WP:BAND. Grk1011 ( talk) 20:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet criteria listed at WP:SINGER for notability. Did not place highly in the contest nor did her song chart. The article is largely unsourced with nothing but minor formatting changes being made over an 8 year period. Grk1011 ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The Baden Revolution and Palatine uprising are notable, but this specific battalion commander is not. The biographical note cited on the page is a short blurb in the name index. The person's battalion is reference in Engels' "The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution". If a wikipedia article existed for that, it would be a worthwhile redirect, but seeing that I can find no reasonable ATD and nominate this for deletion failing WP:NBIO. Tartar Torte 20:25, 7 January 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 23:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
straightforward advertising: First part is information about funding, 2nd is a list of products. fails WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists. The notability claim here is that he and his work exist, with no indication of any major achievements (notable journalism awards, etc.) that would exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here are content self-published by his own employer, which are not support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from an independent third-party source is a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of considerably more than just one short blurb of independent coverage and analysis. Bearcat ( talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Pathan (film)
This upcoming film has already been deleted once, but I haven't seen the deletion discussion, so am not sure that G4 is applicable. It does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines (although an attempt to clarify the guideline resulted in No Consensus). The date for its release is based on rumors, which is crystal balling, and the references contain other release dates in the past that did not happen. This film may be in some sort of development limbo.
The references do not provide anything that could be considered independent significant coverage to establish general notability. The references are a mixture of 404s, press releases, and blogs.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Filmfare.com | A fancy 404 | No | No | No | |
2 | Readersfusion.com | A press release about the film, says it is expected to be released in October 2021, which is past | No | No | No (at least as to release date) | No |
3 | Hindusstannewshub.com | Meant to be a release date, but another 404 | No | No | No | |
4 | latestnews.fresherslive.com | Advertising, that says that the movie will be released on 19 Nov 2021 | No | No | No (at least as to release date) | No |
5 | Dailymovieupdates.com | Announcement of cast | No | No | Maybe | No |
6 | Indiannewslive.com | Another 404 | No | No | No | |
7 | Mtwikiblog.com | Blog information about movie | Yes | No | No, a blog | No |
8 | Bollywood Product | States that release date is July 2022, which might actually be true | Yes | No | Maybe | No |
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No reliable reviews. The sources in the article offer little content to write an article (can only write the "Production" section and not the "Soundtrack" and "Release" sections). All of the sources in article are fairly short.
Other sources found include this one (although it is a passing mention) and this one (good long source, although it may not be reliable). The lack of reliable reviews make writing an article difficult since none of the reliable articles are long.
Based on the sources, one can only write an article with the cast and crew listed and say the film is a "harthal thriller". No other information can be added. DareshMohan ( talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Private training provider. Paid editing. Insignificant number of certification holders compared to Project Management Institute and PRINCE2. The German version of this page was deleted a few days ago as well: [1]. Not to be confused with the better known "International Project Management Association" (IPMA). Ilumeo ( talk) 20:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: User:GilbertPotter, who has declared a conflict of interest in this article ( [2]) and has passionately defended it against deletion, has been going agains the deletion policy ( Wikipedia:Deletion policy) by inappropriately canvassing (specifically spamming) six uninvolved editors (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting ( diff1, diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 edit6. However, I am inclined to assume good faith due to a possible unfamiliarity with Wikipedia polices as a new editor. I also note that none of the six users canvassed has participated in this debate. I did think it should go on record though. -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Membership drive. Not evidently notable, but reasonable to redirect as a search term. RL0919 ( talk) 00:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. RPSkokie ( talk) 12:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
15:37, 7 January 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 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable politician who has not won any major election to meet WP:NPOL. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 ( talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Right now, there is only a single in-depth piece on this restaurant from an independent, reliable source. All the rest are either non-reliable (blogs, allears.nets) or from non-independent sources. Searches did not turn up enough other independent in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to
Epcot since as Onel5969 says there is not enough independent, in-depth coverage of this to meet the notability guidelines. Nor is there anything particularly notable sounding about it in general either. That said, it would make sense to do a redirect and mention it in the article about the Epcot Center. I'm actually kind of surprised it isn't mentioned there already. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Adamant1: Here is more proof that is passes WP:GNG and there is still some more Attractions Magazine 1, Attractions Magazine 2, Attractions Magazine 3, Collider, some more Orlando Weekly 1, Orlando Weekly 2, Orlando Weekly 3, Orlando Weekly 4, People, Narcity, unsure about Snopes, WFTV, Times Now News, don’t know if Daily Mail can be used for something like this, more Orlando Sentinel 1, Orlando Sentinel 2, Orlando Sentinel 3, Click Orlando, Fox35Orlando 1, Fox35Orlando 2, Insider, and I am unsure about Travel and Leisure ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 18:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This has no reviews, and only 11 sources. Can easily be merged with Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee which is not so large. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given the difficulties of finding sources for this type of subject (as described in the discussion), participants appear willing to accept the sources that were found as indicative of notability. RL0919 ( talk) 00:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Russian microbiologist-leprologist. Are the criteria for WP: NACADEMIC fulfilled?-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. I will also move the dab page to this name as an editorial action; the core result of the AfD is the deletion of the current page. I will also merge the two Talk pages. RL0919 ( talk) 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTDIC. This is a dictionary definition of an ordinary word, not an encyclopedic commentary on the term. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Grevenbicht#History. Unlikely that an additional relist would establish different consensus. Creator cautioned against name calling and personal attacks. Star Mississippi 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This article about a bluegrass festival has been unsourced since creation aside from a vague wave to "EBMA European Bluegrass Music Association" as a source. I can find no coverage to establish this as a notable festival. Whpq ( talk) 02:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I am the writer of the article and chairman of Foundation Autism Friendly Limburg. This is the foundation that organised this festival. The foundation is still active. People with or without autism remember this event and it is has the function of a spot on the timeline. People can work together, that is what this festival shows. It was financed with government resources. Therefore the text it should stay. Guffens ( talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC) I propose to help and make suggestions how this article in line with wiki standard. Guffens ( talk) 22:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC) The festival Bluegrass Beeg is part of the history of Grevenbicht#History and therefor a part of history of city Sittard-Geleen#History and part of Province Limburg (Netherlands)#History. Radiostation Start Geleen (now Bie Ös) location Stein made documentary about this festival and local newspaper both visited and wrote an article about this event. If you would like to do factchecking, be my guest and find out for yourself! Guffens ( talk) 12:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Today I confirmed that the used Bluegrass Beeg posters (4) are actually my property. The posters may be used. Guffens ( talk) 11:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The latest change are not appropriate and degradation of the given article. That one who did this is moron. Guffens ( talk) 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
One-year-old company; looks very far from satisfying WP:NCORP. Virtually all sources are directories merely showing that the company exists; the most in-depth one (reference 7) is just an interview which says nothing about the organisation itself. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Parties. North America 1000 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. Has failed to prove notability, if indeed it is. No viable, credible coverage, article reads largely as promotion. No credible election results, no election won, no notable figures, politicians or other persons associated with them. Formerly CSD tagged. doktorb words deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I am struggling to figure out how this subject passes WP:GNG. He doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NMUSICIAN and I have went through WP:BEFORE and can't find any significant coverage outside of passing mentions or event announcements (that includes via my newspapers.com subscription).
Thank you for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain ( talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It's not clear that notability has been established, but with the nominator suggesting withdrawal, there is no apparent consensus to delete either. RL0919 ( talk) 23:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Flagging this for a few reasons. First, there appear to be no verifiable sources. The "BBC" source looks genuine, but is not. The URL is not the same as the proper BBC Arabic site. I google translated this and the name in that 'article' is not the same as in this stub. So this lack of verifiable sources means the article does not and can not meet WP:VERIFY.
Second, as there is no significant coverage and no reliable sources provided, I find this article unlikely to satisfy the requirements of WP:N either.
Third, article is only three days old and has never been reviewed. I understand this is not necessarily a ground for deletion, however it does mean no independent reviewer has confirmed this article as appropriate for Wikipedia. The author has had other articles declined for similar reasons to what I have mentioned.
Last, but this is a weak point - I question whether the article is written in a neutral and objective manner. It merely seems to read like a list of this persons work. Such-change47 ( talk) 08:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment I agree the article is very poorly referenced. It would be great if someone who can read Arabic could review this article. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the article be retained after the changes by
Mccapra?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Not notable five years ago, when deleted at AfD and SALTED. Not notable today, either. — Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
11:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted per R2 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The topic is 200% notable, but what we have here is a fake link (placeholder, not even stub) that compromises WP:RED and has next to zero functionality, and is misleading - creates a fake blue link for stuff like {{Europe topic |Proverbs of}} navigational templates etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ponniyin Selvan#Characters. ✗ plicit 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Currently, none of the sourcing shows any in-depth coverage of real world notability. Searches did not turn up any either. Onel5969 TT me 10:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
While he technically meets the "presumed" low notability threshold of WP:NFOOTY, there is nothing further to be found online, it seems: no career, no birth or death information, no biographical background, nothing. Fails WP:GNG quite badly. Fram ( talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 10:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Russian TV journalist and singer. There are no authoritative links confirming the significance of the person. In the Russian Wikipedia, Yunyaev was removed repeatedly. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Руслан_Юняев ?oldformat=true-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The article was removed from the Russian Wikipedia, since the publication rules were violated in the first editions. ( talk) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete per G7 and BLPREQUESTDELETE. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Article appears to have been written by an enthusiastic new editor about a non-notable but interesting person. They are an early-career academic and writer but do not seem to yet meet notability requirements. Boredintheevening ( talk) 09:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Whether or not this started as a school ^project is, as had been observed in this discussion, irrelevant. However, the "keep !votes fail to show convincingly that this passes GNG, so the "delete" !votes have the better arguments here. Randykitty ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This is just an article about a school project. It doesn't matter if there's a reliable source to say that it happened, a school project is not and never can be a notable topic for an encyclopaedia article. Richard75 ( talk) 14:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Only mentions online are promotional primary sources, or barely mention it in articles about Microsoft's VR aims more broadly. Creator has acknowledged COI, but I still don't think this project meets GNG. BrigadierG ( talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 03:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Soviet Latvian film for children with no real coverage in reliable sources.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 08:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
11:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. While there may or may not be issues surrounding AfC, a six month, extendable window in draft space is a better option than relisting an AfD for another week. Further, this is an ideal article for incubation since the issue is sources present, not an issue with the topic. @ Soman:, you can access this at Draft:Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992). Star Mississippi 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru 1992) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No apparent consensus to delete, but also none for any specific alternative. Fortunately other options don't specifically require an AfD, so discussion about moving, etc, can continue on the article Talk page. RL0919 ( talk) 00:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This is hardly about "infinity plus one", so much as a brief rehash of several existing articles about different kinds of infinity. It would appear that "young people's ideas of infinity", as detailed at [12], is a noteworthy topic, but the sources seem to focus only on infinity in educational contexts or on specific formalisms of infinity such as the surreal numbers. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. While numerically, the deletes outweight the keeps, there's a situation stemming from one of them, specifically Multi7001 further saying that "There is no debate on the notability of the subject itself, just the Wiki page and how it is presented" which is part of what brings us back into no consensus territory, as do the refutations of "fails GNG easily" with statistics on the number of citations. While the article needs improvement, especially with regard to sourcing, there is no clear consensus that this material should be deleted. Star Mississippi 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Insignificant textbook that has basically no notability whatsoever, except perhaps within a teeny tiny circle of electochemists. It's also unsourced, and while it could be sourced, there's no point in doing so since it isn't notable. -- Tautomers( T C) 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
11:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I looked and cannot find substantial coverage in independent sources for a WP:NCORP pass. ( t · c) buidhe 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Sarasota FL is not such a significant metropolis that we need to have a list of its entirely unremarkable tallest buildings (18 floors) and this is just pretty much copied off the Emporis website. The topic isn’t notable and we don’t host data dumps from other sites. Mccapra ( talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Can't exactly find sources that can establish its notability; mostly local event write-ups about shows that are held there but doesn't seem much more than WP:MILL. BriefEdits ( talk) 03:34, 7 January 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! 04:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
From the first source, Insight Brandcom, a Guwahati-based advertising agency, has launched G Plus
. Founder publisher claims in his
linkedin profile to be driving innovation and growth in the marketing communications space
and has nothing about news or journalism.
WP:RS coverage is wholly limited to mentions in the organizers list of an event or to quote credits. Fails
WP:GNG.
Hemantha (
talk)
03:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not suitable for merge if there's no content verified by sources. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage for this television station that is supposed to launch in 2022. My searches also revealed that the channel was originally meant to launch in 2016. SL93 ( talk) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but they don't seem to have generated enough coverage to establish notability. RL0919 ( talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Non notable musical band that fails to meet WP:NBAND and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me unreliable vendor sources, self published sources and a plethora of other unreliable sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep because sources exist even if they are not yet added to the articles. RL0919 ( talk) 16:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
We currently have Wikipedia pages for every one of the tracks on The Division Bell by Pink Floyd. Few of them appear to pass WP:NSONG, on a few counts:
Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
So I'm nominating the following pages for deletion:
Frankly, the other pages aren't in great shape either, and may not pass WP:NSONGS any better, with one or two exceptions. Further opinions there are welcome. Popcornfud ( talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Aervanath ( talk) 01:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A short article of about three paragraphs that lists several meanings of the English word canon and then gives examples of the two more prominent ones (a basic principle, and a body of works). There's nothing that ties the whole together, and the sourcing consists entirely of dictionaries or texts that use the word.
The article can be reverted to its pre-2019 state, where it was solely about canons as basic principles, but even that doesn't appear to be a distinct encyclopedic topic different from, say, Principle. I don't see relevant entries in Encyclopedia Britanica, the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or in Borchert's 10-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed, 2006). There are corresponding articles only in the Dutch, Frisian and Uzbek wikipedias (see canon (Q5033171)); the first two are about canons as bodies of works, not as basic principles.
I doubt there is potential for an article about the word as such, and I don't see anything in the disparate collection of its meanings that a broad-concept article could latch onto. – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
underlying principlewould be akin to a historical dictionary entry, and in this case I think WP:NOTDICT would apply. Veverve ( talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
topic that is frequently used in the context of popular TV series, especially sci fi showsis Canon (fiction). Veverve ( talk) 15:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:39, 7 January 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 02:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
One reference is likely not enough to convey notability, nor does there seem to be much else about this project. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Non notable, don't agree with keeping a draft of someone demonstrably non notable, but will restore to a user space if asked if someone has more sources Fenix down ( talk) 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as subject has yet to make a pro appearance as a footballer; author deleted PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedily deleted by Liz under the G5 criterion. (See SPI.) (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Non notable organization that doesn’t meet WP:NCORP and also do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rock Scully. In the absence of any other input, I'm accepting the suggested redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in my work to improve neo-pagan subjects, I've found another article that fails WP:NAUTHOR.
The only reliable secondary sources are the two "additional sources" presented at the bottom - one is a passing mention about the Eugene, OR, fair, and the other is an interview about....talking to animals.
Google News and newspapers.com had only passing mentions. Google search had only one find, an interview on KPFA (a public radio station in Berkeley, CA). Jstor and Google Scholar had nothing of note and Google Books were entirely her own books.
Also a few brief interviews with her when her husband died. As we know, Wikipedia articles aren't
WP:INHERITED - and yes, that includes
Deadheads.
Finally, a interesting little comment on the talk page by an editor who re-created the article after it was deleted the first time.
Thanks for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain ( talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a good number of passing mentions in reliable sources, but I found nothing passing WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 22:06, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced. Seems to be a WP:MILL shopping center with a theater, big-box, stores, restaurants. Searching finds some routine local coverage about the changes of ownership, but not really the significant in-depth coverage needed for GNG. MB 21:47, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I tried a before search, and got pages of Russian wrestlers and Russian social media. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:46, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Advertorialized
WP:BLP of a writer and activist, not
properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or activists. The notability claim here is essentially that he and his work exist, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie per se -- the notability test is not the things the article says, but the amount of
reliable source media coverage that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. But this is referenced almost entirely to
primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all, with the exception of two brief glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in news stories about other things, which is not the kind of media coverage we're looking for. (We need coverage in which he is the subject being discussed, not coverage in which he's a provider of an opinion about some other subject.)
This is also a clearcut
conflict of interest, as based on the usernames he and
Mohamed Sherif Kamel (also up for AFD) essentially played the "I'll post the article about you and you post the article about me, so that we can't be accused of violating
WP:AUTOBIO" game, which is not an acceptable bypass of our rules.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Ehab Lotayef from having to be referenced considerably better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Group was created specifically for their Junior Eurovision performance and broke up within a couple years. Does not meet inclusion criteria in WP:BAND. Grk1011 ( talk) 20:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet criteria listed at WP:SINGER for notability. Did not place highly in the contest nor did her song chart. The article is largely unsourced with nothing but minor formatting changes being made over an 8 year period. Grk1011 ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The Baden Revolution and Palatine uprising are notable, but this specific battalion commander is not. The biographical note cited on the page is a short blurb in the name index. The person's battalion is reference in Engels' "The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution". If a wikipedia article existed for that, it would be a worthwhile redirect, but seeing that I can find no reasonable ATD and nominate this for deletion failing WP:NBIO. Tartar Torte 20:25, 7 January 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 23:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
straightforward advertising: First part is information about funding, 2nd is a list of products. fails WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 7 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 22:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists. The notability claim here is that he and his work exist, with no indication of any major achievements (notable journalism awards, etc.) that would exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here are content self-published by his own employer, which are not support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from an independent third-party source is a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of considerably more than just one short blurb of independent coverage and analysis. Bearcat ( talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Pathan (film)
This upcoming film has already been deleted once, but I haven't seen the deletion discussion, so am not sure that G4 is applicable. It does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines (although an attempt to clarify the guideline resulted in No Consensus). The date for its release is based on rumors, which is crystal balling, and the references contain other release dates in the past that did not happen. This film may be in some sort of development limbo.
The references do not provide anything that could be considered independent significant coverage to establish general notability. The references are a mixture of 404s, press releases, and blogs.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Filmfare.com | A fancy 404 | No | No | No | |
2 | Readersfusion.com | A press release about the film, says it is expected to be released in October 2021, which is past | No | No | No (at least as to release date) | No |
3 | Hindusstannewshub.com | Meant to be a release date, but another 404 | No | No | No | |
4 | latestnews.fresherslive.com | Advertising, that says that the movie will be released on 19 Nov 2021 | No | No | No (at least as to release date) | No |
5 | Dailymovieupdates.com | Announcement of cast | No | No | Maybe | No |
6 | Indiannewslive.com | Another 404 | No | No | No | |
7 | Mtwikiblog.com | Blog information about movie | Yes | No | No, a blog | No |
8 | Bollywood Product | States that release date is July 2022, which might actually be true | Yes | No | Maybe | No |
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No reliable reviews. The sources in the article offer little content to write an article (can only write the "Production" section and not the "Soundtrack" and "Release" sections). All of the sources in article are fairly short.
Other sources found include this one (although it is a passing mention) and this one (good long source, although it may not be reliable). The lack of reliable reviews make writing an article difficult since none of the reliable articles are long.
Based on the sources, one can only write an article with the cast and crew listed and say the film is a "harthal thriller". No other information can be added. DareshMohan ( talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Private training provider. Paid editing. Insignificant number of certification holders compared to Project Management Institute and PRINCE2. The German version of this page was deleted a few days ago as well: [1]. Not to be confused with the better known "International Project Management Association" (IPMA). Ilumeo ( talk) 20:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: User:GilbertPotter, who has declared a conflict of interest in this article ( [2]) and has passionately defended it against deletion, has been going agains the deletion policy ( Wikipedia:Deletion policy) by inappropriately canvassing (specifically spamming) six uninvolved editors (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting ( diff1, diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 edit6. However, I am inclined to assume good faith due to a possible unfamiliarity with Wikipedia polices as a new editor. I also note that none of the six users canvassed has participated in this debate. I did think it should go on record though. -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Membership drive. Not evidently notable, but reasonable to redirect as a search term. RL0919 ( talk) 00:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. RPSkokie ( talk) 12:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
15:37, 7 January 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 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable politician who has not won any major election to meet WP:NPOL. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 ( talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Right now, there is only a single in-depth piece on this restaurant from an independent, reliable source. All the rest are either non-reliable (blogs, allears.nets) or from non-independent sources. Searches did not turn up enough other independent in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to
Epcot since as Onel5969 says there is not enough independent, in-depth coverage of this to meet the notability guidelines. Nor is there anything particularly notable sounding about it in general either. That said, it would make sense to do a redirect and mention it in the article about the Epcot Center. I'm actually kind of surprised it isn't mentioned there already. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Adamant1: Here is more proof that is passes WP:GNG and there is still some more Attractions Magazine 1, Attractions Magazine 2, Attractions Magazine 3, Collider, some more Orlando Weekly 1, Orlando Weekly 2, Orlando Weekly 3, Orlando Weekly 4, People, Narcity, unsure about Snopes, WFTV, Times Now News, don’t know if Daily Mail can be used for something like this, more Orlando Sentinel 1, Orlando Sentinel 2, Orlando Sentinel 3, Click Orlando, Fox35Orlando 1, Fox35Orlando 2, Insider, and I am unsure about Travel and Leisure ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 18:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This has no reviews, and only 11 sources. Can easily be merged with Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee which is not so large. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Given the difficulties of finding sources for this type of subject (as described in the discussion), participants appear willing to accept the sources that were found as indicative of notability. RL0919 ( talk) 00:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Russian microbiologist-leprologist. Are the criteria for WP: NACADEMIC fulfilled?-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
13:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. I will also move the dab page to this name as an editorial action; the core result of the AfD is the deletion of the current page. I will also merge the two Talk pages. RL0919 ( talk) 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTDIC. This is a dictionary definition of an ordinary word, not an encyclopedic commentary on the term. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Grevenbicht#History. Unlikely that an additional relist would establish different consensus. Creator cautioned against name calling and personal attacks. Star Mississippi 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This article about a bluegrass festival has been unsourced since creation aside from a vague wave to "EBMA European Bluegrass Music Association" as a source. I can find no coverage to establish this as a notable festival. Whpq ( talk) 02:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I am the writer of the article and chairman of Foundation Autism Friendly Limburg. This is the foundation that organised this festival. The foundation is still active. People with or without autism remember this event and it is has the function of a spot on the timeline. People can work together, that is what this festival shows. It was financed with government resources. Therefore the text it should stay. Guffens ( talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC) I propose to help and make suggestions how this article in line with wiki standard. Guffens ( talk) 22:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC) The festival Bluegrass Beeg is part of the history of Grevenbicht#History and therefor a part of history of city Sittard-Geleen#History and part of Province Limburg (Netherlands)#History. Radiostation Start Geleen (now Bie Ös) location Stein made documentary about this festival and local newspaper both visited and wrote an article about this event. If you would like to do factchecking, be my guest and find out for yourself! Guffens ( talk) 12:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Today I confirmed that the used Bluegrass Beeg posters (4) are actually my property. The posters may be used. Guffens ( talk) 11:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The latest change are not appropriate and degradation of the given article. That one who did this is moron. Guffens ( talk) 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
One-year-old company; looks very far from satisfying WP:NCORP. Virtually all sources are directories merely showing that the company exists; the most in-depth one (reference 7) is just an interview which says nothing about the organisation itself. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Parties. North America 1000 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. Has failed to prove notability, if indeed it is. No viable, credible coverage, article reads largely as promotion. No credible election results, no election won, no notable figures, politicians or other persons associated with them. Formerly CSD tagged. doktorb words deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I am struggling to figure out how this subject passes WP:GNG. He doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NMUSICIAN and I have went through WP:BEFORE and can't find any significant coverage outside of passing mentions or event announcements (that includes via my newspapers.com subscription).
Thank you for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain ( talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It's not clear that notability has been established, but with the nominator suggesting withdrawal, there is no apparent consensus to delete either. RL0919 ( talk) 23:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Flagging this for a few reasons. First, there appear to be no verifiable sources. The "BBC" source looks genuine, but is not. The URL is not the same as the proper BBC Arabic site. I google translated this and the name in that 'article' is not the same as in this stub. So this lack of verifiable sources means the article does not and can not meet WP:VERIFY.
Second, as there is no significant coverage and no reliable sources provided, I find this article unlikely to satisfy the requirements of WP:N either.
Third, article is only three days old and has never been reviewed. I understand this is not necessarily a ground for deletion, however it does mean no independent reviewer has confirmed this article as appropriate for Wikipedia. The author has had other articles declined for similar reasons to what I have mentioned.
Last, but this is a weak point - I question whether the article is written in a neutral and objective manner. It merely seems to read like a list of this persons work. Such-change47 ( talk) 08:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment I agree the article is very poorly referenced. It would be great if someone who can read Arabic could review this article. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the article be retained after the changes by
Mccapra?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Not notable five years ago, when deleted at AfD and SALTED. Not notable today, either. — Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
11:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted per R2 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The topic is 200% notable, but what we have here is a fake link (placeholder, not even stub) that compromises WP:RED and has next to zero functionality, and is misleading - creates a fake blue link for stuff like {{Europe topic |Proverbs of}} navigational templates etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ponniyin Selvan#Characters. ✗ plicit 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Currently, none of the sourcing shows any in-depth coverage of real world notability. Searches did not turn up any either. Onel5969 TT me 10:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
While he technically meets the "presumed" low notability threshold of WP:NFOOTY, there is nothing further to be found online, it seems: no career, no birth or death information, no biographical background, nothing. Fails WP:GNG quite badly. Fram ( talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 10:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Russian TV journalist and singer. There are no authoritative links confirming the significance of the person. In the Russian Wikipedia, Yunyaev was removed repeatedly. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Руслан_Юняев ?oldformat=true-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The article was removed from the Russian Wikipedia, since the publication rules were violated in the first editions. ( talk) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete per G7 and BLPREQUESTDELETE. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Article appears to have been written by an enthusiastic new editor about a non-notable but interesting person. They are an early-career academic and writer but do not seem to yet meet notability requirements. Boredintheevening ( talk) 09:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Whether or not this started as a school ^project is, as had been observed in this discussion, irrelevant. However, the "keep !votes fail to show convincingly that this passes GNG, so the "delete" !votes have the better arguments here. Randykitty ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This is just an article about a school project. It doesn't matter if there's a reliable source to say that it happened, a school project is not and never can be a notable topic for an encyclopaedia article. Richard75 ( talk) 14:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Only mentions online are promotional primary sources, or barely mention it in articles about Microsoft's VR aims more broadly. Creator has acknowledged COI, but I still don't think this project meets GNG. BrigadierG ( talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 03:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Soviet Latvian film for children with no real coverage in reliable sources.-- Владимир Бежкрабчжян ( talk) 08:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
11:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. While there may or may not be issues surrounding AfC, a six month, extendable window in draft space is a better option than relisting an AfD for another week. Further, this is an ideal article for incubation since the issue is sources present, not an issue with the topic. @ Soman:, you can access this at Draft:Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992). Star Mississippi 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru 1992) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No apparent consensus to delete, but also none for any specific alternative. Fortunately other options don't specifically require an AfD, so discussion about moving, etc, can continue on the article Talk page. RL0919 ( talk) 00:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This is hardly about "infinity plus one", so much as a brief rehash of several existing articles about different kinds of infinity. It would appear that "young people's ideas of infinity", as detailed at [12], is a noteworthy topic, but the sources seem to focus only on infinity in educational contexts or on specific formalisms of infinity such as the surreal numbers. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. While numerically, the deletes outweight the keeps, there's a situation stemming from one of them, specifically Multi7001 further saying that "There is no debate on the notability of the subject itself, just the Wiki page and how it is presented" which is part of what brings us back into no consensus territory, as do the refutations of "fails GNG easily" with statistics on the number of citations. While the article needs improvement, especially with regard to sourcing, there is no clear consensus that this material should be deleted. Star Mississippi 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Insignificant textbook that has basically no notability whatsoever, except perhaps within a teeny tiny circle of electochemists. It's also unsourced, and while it could be sourced, there's no point in doing so since it isn't notable. -- Tautomers( T C) 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
11:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I looked and cannot find substantial coverage in independent sources for a WP:NCORP pass. ( t · c) buidhe 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Sarasota FL is not such a significant metropolis that we need to have a list of its entirely unremarkable tallest buildings (18 floors) and this is just pretty much copied off the Emporis website. The topic isn’t notable and we don’t host data dumps from other sites. Mccapra ( talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Can't exactly find sources that can establish its notability; mostly local event write-ups about shows that are held there but doesn't seem much more than WP:MILL. BriefEdits ( talk) 03:34, 7 January 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! 04:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
From the first source, Insight Brandcom, a Guwahati-based advertising agency, has launched G Plus
. Founder publisher claims in his
linkedin profile to be driving innovation and growth in the marketing communications space
and has nothing about news or journalism.
WP:RS coverage is wholly limited to mentions in the organizers list of an event or to quote credits. Fails
WP:GNG.
Hemantha (
talk)
03:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not suitable for merge if there's no content verified by sources. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I found no significant coverage for this television station that is supposed to launch in 2022. My searches also revealed that the channel was originally meant to launch in 2016. SL93 ( talk) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but they don't seem to have generated enough coverage to establish notability. RL0919 ( talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Non notable musical band that fails to meet WP:NBAND and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me unreliable vendor sources, self published sources and a plethora of other unreliable sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep because sources exist even if they are not yet added to the articles. RL0919 ( talk) 16:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
We currently have Wikipedia pages for every one of the tracks on The Division Bell by Pink Floyd. Few of them appear to pass WP:NSONG, on a few counts:
Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
So I'm nominating the following pages for deletion:
Frankly, the other pages aren't in great shape either, and may not pass WP:NSONGS any better, with one or two exceptions. Further opinions there are welcome. Popcornfud ( talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Aervanath ( talk) 01:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A short article of about three paragraphs that lists several meanings of the English word canon and then gives examples of the two more prominent ones (a basic principle, and a body of works). There's nothing that ties the whole together, and the sourcing consists entirely of dictionaries or texts that use the word.
The article can be reverted to its pre-2019 state, where it was solely about canons as basic principles, but even that doesn't appear to be a distinct encyclopedic topic different from, say, Principle. I don't see relevant entries in Encyclopedia Britanica, the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or in Borchert's 10-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed, 2006). There are corresponding articles only in the Dutch, Frisian and Uzbek wikipedias (see canon (Q5033171)); the first two are about canons as bodies of works, not as basic principles.
I doubt there is potential for an article about the word as such, and I don't see anything in the disparate collection of its meanings that a broad-concept article could latch onto. – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
underlying principlewould be akin to a historical dictionary entry, and in this case I think WP:NOTDICT would apply. Veverve ( talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
topic that is frequently used in the context of popular TV series, especially sci fi showsis Canon (fiction). Veverve ( talk) 15:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:39, 7 January 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 02:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
One reference is likely not enough to convey notability, nor does there seem to be much else about this project. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Non notable, don't agree with keeping a draft of someone demonstrably non notable, but will restore to a user space if asked if someone has more sources Fenix down ( talk) 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as subject has yet to make a pro appearance as a footballer; author deleted PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)