![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 22:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
For an unreleased album to be notable, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it should be notable even if it is not released. (This is because albums are regularly delayed/cancelled, so are not "almost certain to take place".)
The existence of a minimal amount of routine information is not suited to a standalone article, but to incorporation in the existing article on the band—or, in the article " Part of the Band", which is notable due to a significant number of in-depth reviews and analyses. Mostly unsourced speculation about the album details, such as claimed track lengths, and a track listing that has been published by the band but will be subject to change, are not solid grounds for an article.
The current sourcing is: two primary sources (YouTube videos); three routine NME sources giving the very little publicly available information about the album; two sources where notability is conferred on "Part of the Band" but not inherited to the album.
Attempts to redirect have been quashed through edit warring by a recreating user that has not engaged in discussion yet. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.The title, track listing and release date have been given. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:50, 11 July 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! 23:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This article about a Ugandan radio station has been created by a COI editor and in my eyes does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Noah S. Sweat#The "whiskey speech". czar 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this is adequately covered in the section in the original speaker's article, Noah S. Sweat. While the term has been covered in various secondary sources, it has never been done so in a context that is separate from the speaker or the speech in question. I think it falls afoul of WP:INHERITED. I'd propose a merge, but I think the topic is adequately covered in the parent article already. BrigadierG ( talk) 21:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 22:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. WP:NFOOTY no longer exists to presume notability. I'm not certain the cited sources are reliable and the ones provided are mostly mere mentions to verify she's on the team but not enough WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not qualify for a WP:SPLIT; the imag being on Gdańsk is enough, surely. – Meena • 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I've done a source assessment on the article talk and am just not seeing notability outside of local coverage and some industry publications. Appears to have been created by an SPA and has recently been edited by likely UPE. valereee ( talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced to just one website. Fails to establish notability and some of the claims, such as when the church was destroyed, are not found in the offered sources. The claims may well be true, but we need to be able to verify them. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second relist upon requests for
User:ColeB34 to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 22:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
aside from her role on True Blood, I don't see any evidence that even claims she's notable - and I don't think one role satisfies NACTOR. I'm not sure what kind of award is granted to someone for a single episode appearance either (re: awards and noms for New Girl) but there is no meaningful, in depth coverage of Noelle either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:24, 9 July 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! 03:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any significant secondary coverage. BangJan1999 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 22:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Scorched Tanks is an artillery game for Amiga based on Scorched Earth and preceding Worms. The coverage I found for the game on Google and Internet Archive was minimal, and the reviews were few and far between. I had a similar outcome for Pocket Tanks, which is basically the same thing but for modern operating systems and mobile devices. I do see lists of top games featuring Pocket Tanks, but they do not say why the game (or its Amiga counterpart) is notable. Now, the game may be notable enough to be merged into the Scorched Earth article if any of the material is to be kept. Free Media Kid$ 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus to keep due to charting records per WP:BAND. Although provided source for charts cannot be searched online, other searches do seem to confirm existence of band and the charting records. TigerShark ( talk) 03:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable band. The only thing that even comes up when you search "Pangaea band" is a different band from the US. It was already deleted before ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pangaea_(band)) but apparantly recreated--- FMSky ( talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. There are no roles listed here that would pass WP:NPOL as "inherently" notable ones, so getting her into Wikipedia would depend on sourcing her over WP:GNG, but the footnotes here are directories and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not GNG-worthy coverage about her. Bearcat ( talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus which doesn't preclude a continued discussion about a possible merger. Star Mississippi 02:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Current sourcing is as follows:
In short, there is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the mall's cancellation. Just one smattering of sources when it was first announced, and another smattering when it didn't. None of it was ever built, and only two stores were announced. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trillium Circle, literally all we can say is that it was never built and someone else owns the land. There is zero evidence in a WP:BEFORE of long-term sustained coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:57, 9 July 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. czar 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
xwiki vanity spam, no evidence any of this is true wrt it's circulation and no coverage anywhere reliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 18:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG. We cannot rely upon the routine coverage found from the works in which she was featured or, in this case, publishers of music who provide bios of artists. Even actual journalism like this is a mere mention of her and not significant coverage. My A7 was declined so I'm sending this to AfD rather than draft. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itselfand per #4
has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, and per #6, she
is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
reasonably prominent. I did not add announcements of performances or album releases; these are independent RS over time providing secondary coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not seeing the immediate need for SALT as the article has not been repeatedly recreated (last deletion was six years ago). czar 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anything good has changed since the last AfD. I tried to search online but couldn't find anything that helps substantially. The subject doesn't meet GNG, and it doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This page has no valid references and this person is showing this Wikipedia page of him and selling Wikipedia pages creation service on Fiverr and Upwork, I have Googled this name and found no evidence or news articles on him, I am amazed to see why this page is still live without any references. As per this /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Notability he lacks notability especially point 2-3-4. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 14:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC) (on behalf of IntelisMust who malformed this page)
The result was merge to Greater Jakarta LRT. czar 18:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The incident is not notable enough to have a standalone article. The incident happened during trials. No passengers were present, there are no serious casualties, only 1 minor injury. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was histmerge. Next time can request this type of merge at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, since there is no argument about the topic's notability. czar 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Recently created article with significant portions copied from Draft:Room 203. This article should be deleted and the draft should be published to maintain edit history. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wehwalt ( talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This footballer made 2 professional appearances in 1980 but lacks significant coverage to prove notability.
I added a couple of bits I found in my BEFORE search to the article, but I don't feel they're enough for him to warrant an article. In particular Where are They Now publish fan submissions, so I'm not sure if their info is reliable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 12:20, 9 July 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 12:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Non- First Lady of the Philippines which lacks coverage that would make this article satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies when it comes to being a former wife of a president Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 05:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Prodded by Joe Roe, but de-PRODded without any reason given. Original reason for PROD was:
Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. Sources are primary, non-independent and/or trivial passing mentions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the newly expanded article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. More of less copied from the websites. No indication of notability. Seem to be the case that his wife that is notable in the family. scope_creep Talk 11:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Failed political candidate, so fails WP:NPOL. Attempts to determine WP:NPROF compatibility were muddled due to search results for an identically-named dermatologist CiphriusKane ( talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn - I was unaware of the previous AfD, so I apologise. Given the mention of sources in the previous AfD (which were never added to the article), I am unsure whether the coverage is sufficient but would rather leave it be CiphriusKane ( talk) 10:53, 9 July 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 12:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Chief executive of a Ghanaian town of 122,000. He has routine coverage but does not pass NPOL. Mccapra ( talk) 09:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka list of works that mention University of Santo Tomas. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/ WP:IPC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources)? It's filled with OR, and this fails WP:LISTN. VickKiang ( talk) 10:53, 11 July 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 12:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I unwisely passed this at NPP though I removed slabs of unsourced text. The sourcing is rubbish and I don’t see anything better out there. My reason for passing it was that since we have a load of Miss Femina India articles there must be better sources somewhere but on reflection that seems dubious. It’s already been moved to draft and back, and the unsourced material has been restored, so we need to decide what to do with it. Mccapra ( talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Tagged CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass NFILM. Most of the sources focus on the filmmaker Fox Maxy rather than this particular documentary. –– FormalDude talk 09:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are business ads for this BLP. scope_creep Talk 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Brochure article. Native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are press-releases, PR, annoucements. scope_creep Talk 09:02, 9 July 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 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor roles only. scope_creep Talk 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and reads like an advertisement. –– FormalDude talk 08:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Falls short of meeting WP:GNG, coverage is limited to often un-bylined local news pieces interviewing the director. The International Media Arts Film Awards in Kampala, Uganda, where the film reportedly won awards, does not appear to be itself notable and thus doesn't do much to build the case for this film. signed, Rosguill talk 05:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY as a non-notable rivalry. Article was already deleted in 2018 and recreated in 2021. While the current version is a substantial improvement in terms of content, there is still no WP:SIGCOV establishing this series as a rivalry. A WP:BEFORE search on the topic via Google shows only a couple fan blogs and very little to satisfy GNG. In fact, there are other articles explicitly stating a rivalry does NOT exist between these two teams or the rivalry is between the Celtics and LeBron James rather than the Cavaliers. [23] [24] [25]. Frank Anchor 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Diosdado Macapagal#Early life. WP:ATD-R. czar 21:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Non- First Lady of the Philippines which lacks coverage that would make this article satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies when it comes to being a former wife of a president. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:55, 9 July 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 12:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Putting this here not really as a deletion discussion, but as a what-to-do-with-this discussion. It's been tagged as OR and for want of sources for a year now (I expect some synthesis stuff in there too), has a really vague inclusion criterion, and I don't really see a viable path to improvement short of splitting this into multiple lists with stricter inclusion criteria, which is basically WP:TNT. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Part of mass translation from fi-wiki. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, with minimal sourcing online or in the article. The first article source is affiliated. The second seems to be routine business news about an acquisition, and I've tried to access it and bypass the paywall without success. Several weeks ago, I also asked the article creator here if they had access, with no reply except for further article/stub creation. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Google Scholar returns five papers, only two of which seem to have been cited by others. These two have been cited 2 and 34 times, respectively; compare this to a random academic, Yangnam Gu, who has produced at least four times the output, averaging around 40 citations per paper. This person is not widely cited. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:51, 9 July 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 12:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Article was previously moved to draft space due to lack of secondary reliable sources. However, the creator insists moving it back to the main space although it has a lot of unreliable sources such as download links and "10 things you didn't know about an artist" links, and the attached media (image) was probably took from Instagram without any proof of permission whatsoever. Neo the Twin ( talk) 08:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
No indication of meeting GNG. In Google Books, there's trivial mentions here and there 1, 2, and it's often cited as a ref, see 1, but there isn't indicating of meeting GNG. VickKiang ( talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
most comprehensive site for information about the Argentine film industry, is there sources for this? Please ping me on which criteria you think it meets GNG. THe DK Eyewitness is interesting, but why do you think it's more than a passing mention? Though, I probably agree that I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I would probably change my mind if more reliable refs are provided, but right now I still disagree a bit with the line
The nominator clearly lacks understanding on what meets notability requirements here. Many thanks for your improvements to the article! VickKiang ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
no lengthy description, how is the coverage meeting notability? I am a bit confused with the wording, and looked at the refs you and Dr Blofeld inserted, they are certainly RS, but I couldn’t see descriptions longer than a paragraph. I also don’t see any policies that say a website should be kept based on WP citations? Many thanks for your help and improving the article! VickKiang ( talk)
The result was delete. We're not rewarding socks with a seven day discussion when consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 03:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Solely promotional. Fails WP:NORG and created by likely COI/sock. 0x Deadbeef 07:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
[t]hey fund medical equipment for disadvantaged children afflicted with disabilityand
MAD features in Australian media through [...]) than to establish its notability. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kerala Premier League. ✗ plicit 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The club has neither played in any of the national level football leagues nor any of the official cup competition in India. The Kerala Premier League (presently the 4th tier) is only a regional state league. The club has no significant coverage from the citations. Fails GNG Sullyboywiki ( talk) 07:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain ( AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:44, 9 July 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! 06:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:57, 9 July 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! 06:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:56, 9 July 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! 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:54, 9 July 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! 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:52, 9 July 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! 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:51, 9 July 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! 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only source is this [27], failing well short of meeting either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything not already in the article, which would suggest the topic is not notable and does not meet WP:BAND. –– FormalDude talk 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. with a request to stubbify this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think this subject passes WP:NPROF. Google scholar shows them mainly as the second or third author of many papers, lead author in twenty papers over the first ten pages of search: no notable awards or other distinctions either and does not appear to meet any of the 8 notability criteria for academics. Mccapra ( talk) 04:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:19, 9 July 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! 03:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Primary schools generally aren’t notable, and despite being opened by the President, this one doesn’t appear to be so. Mccapra ( talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:57, 9 July 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! 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. There are a handful of independent product reviews, see [29], [30], and passing mentions like [31]. Alas, nothing substantial, and the article has seen some COI activity. Ovinus ( talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
*Weak keep Seems to meet
WP:NPROF based on citations, if possibly slightly
WP:TOOSOON. -
Kj cheetham (
talk)
10:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
03:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNBC#Former programming. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Detailed WP:BEFORE on ProQuest:
The only source in the article is a wayback link to CNBC's website, and I was unable to find any better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
03:33, 9 July 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 03:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
NN college dormitory. Lack of independent coverage. Appears to be a routine building. MB 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Is the twenty-n-th person to qualify as Y notable? I don't think WP:GNG is met here. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Should be deleted until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:10, 9 July 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! 01:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:08, 9 July 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! 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:05, 9 July 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! 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:03, 9 July 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! 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:51, 9 July 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! 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:48, 9 July 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! 01:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:46, 9 July 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! 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:32, 9 July 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! 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:31, 9 July 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! 01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:29, 9 July 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! 01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:27, 9 July 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! 01:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 22:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
For an unreleased album to be notable, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it should be notable even if it is not released. (This is because albums are regularly delayed/cancelled, so are not "almost certain to take place".)
The existence of a minimal amount of routine information is not suited to a standalone article, but to incorporation in the existing article on the band—or, in the article " Part of the Band", which is notable due to a significant number of in-depth reviews and analyses. Mostly unsourced speculation about the album details, such as claimed track lengths, and a track listing that has been published by the band but will be subject to change, are not solid grounds for an article.
The current sourcing is: two primary sources (YouTube videos); three routine NME sources giving the very little publicly available information about the album; two sources where notability is conferred on "Part of the Band" but not inherited to the album.
Attempts to redirect have been quashed through edit warring by a recreating user that has not engaged in discussion yet. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.The title, track listing and release date have been given. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:50, 11 July 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! 23:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This article about a Ugandan radio station has been created by a COI editor and in my eyes does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Noah S. Sweat#The "whiskey speech". czar 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this is adequately covered in the section in the original speaker's article, Noah S. Sweat. While the term has been covered in various secondary sources, it has never been done so in a context that is separate from the speaker or the speech in question. I think it falls afoul of WP:INHERITED. I'd propose a merge, but I think the topic is adequately covered in the parent article already. BrigadierG ( talk) 21:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 22:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. WP:NFOOTY no longer exists to presume notability. I'm not certain the cited sources are reliable and the ones provided are mostly mere mentions to verify she's on the team but not enough WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not qualify for a WP:SPLIT; the imag being on Gdańsk is enough, surely. – Meena • 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I've done a source assessment on the article talk and am just not seeing notability outside of local coverage and some industry publications. Appears to have been created by an SPA and has recently been edited by likely UPE. valereee ( talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced to just one website. Fails to establish notability and some of the claims, such as when the church was destroyed, are not found in the offered sources. The claims may well be true, but we need to be able to verify them. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second relist upon requests for
User:ColeB34 to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 22:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
aside from her role on True Blood, I don't see any evidence that even claims she's notable - and I don't think one role satisfies NACTOR. I'm not sure what kind of award is granted to someone for a single episode appearance either (re: awards and noms for New Girl) but there is no meaningful, in depth coverage of Noelle either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:24, 9 July 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! 03:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any significant secondary coverage. BangJan1999 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 22:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Scorched Tanks is an artillery game for Amiga based on Scorched Earth and preceding Worms. The coverage I found for the game on Google and Internet Archive was minimal, and the reviews were few and far between. I had a similar outcome for Pocket Tanks, which is basically the same thing but for modern operating systems and mobile devices. I do see lists of top games featuring Pocket Tanks, but they do not say why the game (or its Amiga counterpart) is notable. Now, the game may be notable enough to be merged into the Scorched Earth article if any of the material is to be kept. Free Media Kid$ 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus to keep due to charting records per WP:BAND. Although provided source for charts cannot be searched online, other searches do seem to confirm existence of band and the charting records. TigerShark ( talk) 03:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable band. The only thing that even comes up when you search "Pangaea band" is a different band from the US. It was already deleted before ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pangaea_(band)) but apparantly recreated--- FMSky ( talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. There are no roles listed here that would pass WP:NPOL as "inherently" notable ones, so getting her into Wikipedia would depend on sourcing her over WP:GNG, but the footnotes here are directories and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not GNG-worthy coverage about her. Bearcat ( talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus which doesn't preclude a continued discussion about a possible merger. Star Mississippi 02:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Current sourcing is as follows:
In short, there is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the mall's cancellation. Just one smattering of sources when it was first announced, and another smattering when it didn't. None of it was ever built, and only two stores were announced. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trillium Circle, literally all we can say is that it was never built and someone else owns the land. There is zero evidence in a WP:BEFORE of long-term sustained coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:57, 9 July 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. czar 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
xwiki vanity spam, no evidence any of this is true wrt it's circulation and no coverage anywhere reliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 18:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG. We cannot rely upon the routine coverage found from the works in which she was featured or, in this case, publishers of music who provide bios of artists. Even actual journalism like this is a mere mention of her and not significant coverage. My A7 was declined so I'm sending this to AfD rather than draft. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itselfand per #4
has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, and per #6, she
is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
reasonably prominent. I did not add announcements of performances or album releases; these are independent RS over time providing secondary coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Not seeing the immediate need for SALT as the article has not been repeatedly recreated (last deletion was six years ago). czar 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anything good has changed since the last AfD. I tried to search online but couldn't find anything that helps substantially. The subject doesn't meet GNG, and it doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This page has no valid references and this person is showing this Wikipedia page of him and selling Wikipedia pages creation service on Fiverr and Upwork, I have Googled this name and found no evidence or news articles on him, I am amazed to see why this page is still live without any references. As per this /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Notability he lacks notability especially point 2-3-4. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 14:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC) (on behalf of IntelisMust who malformed this page)
The result was merge to Greater Jakarta LRT. czar 18:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The incident is not notable enough to have a standalone article. The incident happened during trials. No passengers were present, there are no serious casualties, only 1 minor injury. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was histmerge. Next time can request this type of merge at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, since there is no argument about the topic's notability. czar 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Recently created article with significant portions copied from Draft:Room 203. This article should be deleted and the draft should be published to maintain edit history. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wehwalt ( talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This footballer made 2 professional appearances in 1980 but lacks significant coverage to prove notability.
I added a couple of bits I found in my BEFORE search to the article, but I don't feel they're enough for him to warrant an article. In particular Where are They Now publish fan submissions, so I'm not sure if their info is reliable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 12:20, 9 July 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 12:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Non- First Lady of the Philippines which lacks coverage that would make this article satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies when it comes to being a former wife of a president Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 05:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Prodded by Joe Roe, but de-PRODded without any reason given. Original reason for PROD was:
Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. Sources are primary, non-independent and/or trivial passing mentions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the newly expanded article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. More of less copied from the websites. No indication of notability. Seem to be the case that his wife that is notable in the family. scope_creep Talk 11:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Failed political candidate, so fails WP:NPOL. Attempts to determine WP:NPROF compatibility were muddled due to search results for an identically-named dermatologist CiphriusKane ( talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn - I was unaware of the previous AfD, so I apologise. Given the mention of sources in the previous AfD (which were never added to the article), I am unsure whether the coverage is sufficient but would rather leave it be CiphriusKane ( talk) 10:53, 9 July 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 12:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Chief executive of a Ghanaian town of 122,000. He has routine coverage but does not pass NPOL. Mccapra ( talk) 09:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka list of works that mention University of Santo Tomas. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/ WP:IPC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources)? It's filled with OR, and this fails WP:LISTN. VickKiang ( talk) 10:53, 11 July 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 12:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I unwisely passed this at NPP though I removed slabs of unsourced text. The sourcing is rubbish and I don’t see anything better out there. My reason for passing it was that since we have a load of Miss Femina India articles there must be better sources somewhere but on reflection that seems dubious. It’s already been moved to draft and back, and the unsourced material has been restored, so we need to decide what to do with it. Mccapra ( talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Tagged CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass NFILM. Most of the sources focus on the filmmaker Fox Maxy rather than this particular documentary. –– FormalDude talk 09:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are business ads for this BLP. scope_creep Talk 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Brochure article. Native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are press-releases, PR, annoucements. scope_creep Talk 09:02, 9 July 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 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor roles only. scope_creep Talk 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and reads like an advertisement. –– FormalDude talk 08:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Falls short of meeting WP:GNG, coverage is limited to often un-bylined local news pieces interviewing the director. The International Media Arts Film Awards in Kampala, Uganda, where the film reportedly won awards, does not appear to be itself notable and thus doesn't do much to build the case for this film. signed, Rosguill talk 05:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY as a non-notable rivalry. Article was already deleted in 2018 and recreated in 2021. While the current version is a substantial improvement in terms of content, there is still no WP:SIGCOV establishing this series as a rivalry. A WP:BEFORE search on the topic via Google shows only a couple fan blogs and very little to satisfy GNG. In fact, there are other articles explicitly stating a rivalry does NOT exist between these two teams or the rivalry is between the Celtics and LeBron James rather than the Cavaliers. [23] [24] [25]. Frank Anchor 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Diosdado Macapagal#Early life. WP:ATD-R. czar 21:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Non- First Lady of the Philippines which lacks coverage that would make this article satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies when it comes to being a former wife of a president. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:55, 9 July 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 12:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Putting this here not really as a deletion discussion, but as a what-to-do-with-this discussion. It's been tagged as OR and for want of sources for a year now (I expect some synthesis stuff in there too), has a really vague inclusion criterion, and I don't really see a viable path to improvement short of splitting this into multiple lists with stricter inclusion criteria, which is basically WP:TNT. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Part of mass translation from fi-wiki. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, with minimal sourcing online or in the article. The first article source is affiliated. The second seems to be routine business news about an acquisition, and I've tried to access it and bypass the paywall without success. Several weeks ago, I also asked the article creator here if they had access, with no reply except for further article/stub creation. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Google Scholar returns five papers, only two of which seem to have been cited by others. These two have been cited 2 and 34 times, respectively; compare this to a random academic, Yangnam Gu, who has produced at least four times the output, averaging around 40 citations per paper. This person is not widely cited. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
08:51, 9 July 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 12:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Article was previously moved to draft space due to lack of secondary reliable sources. However, the creator insists moving it back to the main space although it has a lot of unreliable sources such as download links and "10 things you didn't know about an artist" links, and the attached media (image) was probably took from Instagram without any proof of permission whatsoever. Neo the Twin ( talk) 08:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
No indication of meeting GNG. In Google Books, there's trivial mentions here and there 1, 2, and it's often cited as a ref, see 1, but there isn't indicating of meeting GNG. VickKiang ( talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
most comprehensive site for information about the Argentine film industry, is there sources for this? Please ping me on which criteria you think it meets GNG. THe DK Eyewitness is interesting, but why do you think it's more than a passing mention? Though, I probably agree that I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I would probably change my mind if more reliable refs are provided, but right now I still disagree a bit with the line
The nominator clearly lacks understanding on what meets notability requirements here. Many thanks for your improvements to the article! VickKiang ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
no lengthy description, how is the coverage meeting notability? I am a bit confused with the wording, and looked at the refs you and Dr Blofeld inserted, they are certainly RS, but I couldn’t see descriptions longer than a paragraph. I also don’t see any policies that say a website should be kept based on WP citations? Many thanks for your help and improving the article! VickKiang ( talk)
The result was delete. We're not rewarding socks with a seven day discussion when consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 03:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Solely promotional. Fails WP:NORG and created by likely COI/sock. 0x Deadbeef 07:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
[t]hey fund medical equipment for disadvantaged children afflicted with disabilityand
MAD features in Australian media through [...]) than to establish its notability. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kerala Premier League. ✗ plicit 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The club has neither played in any of the national level football leagues nor any of the official cup competition in India. The Kerala Premier League (presently the 4th tier) is only a regional state league. The club has no significant coverage from the citations. Fails GNG Sullyboywiki ( talk) 07:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain ( AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:44, 9 July 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! 06:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:57, 9 July 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! 06:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:56, 9 July 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! 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:54, 9 July 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! 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:52, 9 July 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! 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:51, 9 July 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! 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only source is this [27], failing well short of meeting either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything not already in the article, which would suggest the topic is not notable and does not meet WP:BAND. –– FormalDude talk 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. with a request to stubbify this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think this subject passes WP:NPROF. Google scholar shows them mainly as the second or third author of many papers, lead author in twenty papers over the first ten pages of search: no notable awards or other distinctions either and does not appear to meet any of the 8 notability criteria for academics. Mccapra ( talk) 04:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:19, 9 July 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! 03:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Primary schools generally aren’t notable, and despite being opened by the President, this one doesn’t appear to be so. Mccapra ( talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:57, 9 July 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! 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. There are a handful of independent product reviews, see [29], [30], and passing mentions like [31]. Alas, nothing substantial, and the article has seen some COI activity. Ovinus ( talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
*Weak keep Seems to meet
WP:NPROF based on citations, if possibly slightly
WP:TOOSOON. -
Kj cheetham (
talk)
10:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
03:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNBC#Former programming. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Detailed WP:BEFORE on ProQuest:
The only source in the article is a wayback link to CNBC's website, and I was unable to find any better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
03:33, 9 July 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 03:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
NN college dormitory. Lack of independent coverage. Appears to be a routine building. MB 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Is the twenty-n-th person to qualify as Y notable? I don't think WP:GNG is met here. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Should be deleted until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:10, 9 July 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! 01:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:08, 9 July 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! 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:05, 9 July 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! 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:03, 9 July 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! 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:51, 9 July 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! 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:48, 9 July 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! 01:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:46, 9 July 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! 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:32, 9 July 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! 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:31, 9 July 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! 01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:29, 9 July 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! 01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:27, 9 July 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! 01:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)