![]() |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Musical act with no reliable sources to indicate WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to NESN#Former. ✗ plicit 12:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced, minimal sourcing found. As a one-market show it's unlikely to have garnered media attention Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:34, 29 May 2022 (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
00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
No sourcing found, prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (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
23:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
other than sexual harassment accusation, not notable. WP:BLP1E applies. Not enough to be in Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Extent of notability unclear Mooonswimmer 22:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Chain seems to have existed, notability isn't apparent. Mooonswimmer 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't come up with significant ample coverage, not sure if notable. Lunde was chief editor of Aftenposten, Norway's most circulated newspaper. Would this fall under WP:JOURNALIST's "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" ? Mooonswimmer 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ottoman Turkish alphabet. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject matter doesn't seem to warrant a standalone page. Once translated, a sentence or two can be incorporated into Ottoman Turkish alphabet or similar articles. Mooonswimmer 22:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Could these additional sources be added to the article? Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
"Pytkeev space" is defined in a single 2000 paper, in terms so specialized we have no articles for them. The term is not in general use and easily confused with the "strong Pytkeev property". Links to weakly Fréchet–Urysohn space, an ad-hoc definition in the same paper.
Simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. IpseCustos ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Masurica for a thorough explanation of the problems with this article. Much of this information is fantastical. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 12 June 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 03:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Cartoonito (American programming block). Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable programming block, no sourcing found. Deprodded for literally no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:13, 12 June 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! 23:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced, fails NBIO and GNG as the sources are all churnalistic entrepreneur profiles. Created by a blocked user. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The case was not made that a redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No sourcing found in a WP:BEFORE. Found only false positives using the phrase "best sex ever" unrelated contexts. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
22:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Plebiscito.eu. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
A party that took part in an unofficial local election and of which it is almost impossible to find sources. It does not seems to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 22:00, 12 June 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed under new page patrol. No evidence of WP:notability. This is one person's theory. It appears that there is no in depth coverage of the theory except by the one person who created the theory, Ingo Piepers. It appears that 2-3 references criticized it. At least 5 (and probably more) of of the given references were written by Piepers. North8000 ( talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Italian Liberal Party (1997). Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
"Liberals for Italy" was nothing more than a label for a parliamentary subgroup affiliated with the Italian Liberal Party (1997) and subsequently for a list (directly connected to the Italian Liberal Party) that participated in the Italian general election of 2013 (scoring 0.08% of the vote). In practice, the little information contained in this page could easily be merged with Italian Liberal Party (1997), but I don't see any reason to keep an autonomous page for this label. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 21:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Result was Snow Keep. The nominator has been blocked for socking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole. TolWol56 ( talk) 01:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject has limited references, and seems to be WP:PROMO. I believe this subject fails WP:NBASIC. Sebastien1118 ( talk) 20:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete – see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPLIVE202. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Unreleased non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous
WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Website is clearly inactive. Previous nomination in 2016 conducted when website was still active. Page is an orphan. Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly. i would claim page no longer notable. Spiralwidget ( talk) 20:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Here's one spot: Outgrow.me, a digital marketplace for projects that were successfully funded on both Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. The site sorts its contents by "Orderable" and "Pre-orderable," as well as by topic and price. And it's "fine proof," The Next Web puts it, "that the Kickstarter concept does work despite the (admittedly warranted) pessimistic coverage of crowdfunded failures." ... On the one hand, Outgrow.me is both simple and inevitable: It's a catalog fit for the Kickstarter era. It sells, like any standard catalog does, knickknacks of varying value and utility -- some junky, some fantastic, some junky and fantastic at the same time. What's interesting about it, though, is that Outgrow.me is as much about selling a production process as it is about selling products."
The article notes: "The new Web site Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time."
The article notes: "Outgrow.me is a marketplace for Kickstarter and IndieGoGo projects that were successfully funded and are now available for purchase. Here, you can go beyond thinking about how cool it would be if something did come to market and start benefiting from all that the best of crowdfunding entails. ... The site does allow listings for projects that are successfully funded but can only be pre-ordered. We don’t know whether Outgrow.me restricts these based on the project’s level of readiness for the market, which again raises concerns about the failure of funded Kickstarter projects, but these can be filtered out quite easily right at the top of the homepage."
The article notes: "From an iPad stylus with pinpoint accuracy and sleek desktop jelly fish tanks to customizable 3-string guitars and zero-waste batteries, Outgrow.me makes it beyond easy to see — and spend money on — the best that Kickstarter and Indiegogo have to offer."
The article notes: "Sam Fellig has an answer in Outgrow.me. Mr Fellig started the e-commerce site last year as a programming project, while retraining to exit his old job working with homeowners who were trying to retain their houses in the event of foreclosure. He spotted a growing problem with crowdfunded products. ... More recent campaigns have learned from earlier ones' experience and are getting much better at meeting deadlines. Outgrow.me has every chance of living up to its name."
The article notes: "Outgrow.me solves that problem by featuring only Kickstarter and Indiegogo products that are either available for purchase or preorder. If it’s not on the site, it’s either not ready or it didn’t get enough funding."
The article notes: "So, where's the best place to shop for those Kickstarters? Try outgrow.me. This marketplace website collects the successfully launched gear in an attractive and easy-to-navigate online store. But buyer beware, they also showcase some of those products that aren't quite out of the launch bay (such as the examples above, or the Oculus Rift 3D headset)."
Regarding "Page is an orphan", per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Orphan status, this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.
Regarding "Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly", see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
The result was redirect to Lega Toscana. I've gone for this instead of a merge because consensus appears that there is little that could be added aside from a sentence or two, which would be minor work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
A totally unknown local party, that existed for a very short period of time. The page is written in five lines and only half of them concerns the party. Two sources are cited on the page, only one of them concerns the party and textually reads: "Riccardo Fragassi ... founded the Tuscan Federalist Alliance and then disappeared." It does not seem possible to find any other source except this one, which merely states that the party has existed and disappeared. Practically, this party is devoid of any kind of source and relevance. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete – see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPLIVE202. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Contested Prod by single purpose editor. Nothing seems to be notable about this company fails WP:GNG and more so WP:NCORP McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
20:38, 12 June 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) 20:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Low-level skiier that never placed on the podium or won a title, and maxed out at 23rd place, so we can't presume notability based on high achievement. No WP:GNG coverage located on a search. Long since retired so new coverage is unlikely to be generated. Only source currently is a database. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 12 June 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) 20:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
With WP:NFOOTY deprecated, notability is no longer presumed on a single professional appearance; WP:GNG must be met. No significant coverage located on a search. Even presuming the Norwegian News Agency source is SIGCOV (I haven't been able to find access to it to verify), a single source is insufficient to keep the article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 12 June 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) 20:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Low-level skiier that never placed on the podium or won a title, and maxed out at 19th place, so we can't presume notability based on high achievement. No WP:GNG coverage located on a search. Only source currently is a database. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
20:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a county executive, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of office is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia -- it's one where the sourcing and substance need to establish that he has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county executives. But that's not what's on offer here: this is essentially a résumé, referenced almost entirely to a mixture of
primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations that he's directly affiliated with, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all and
run of the mill coverage in community hyperlocals, with only one hit from a major
WP:GNG-worthy daily newspaper (which isn't enough all by itself.)
In addition, there's also a possibility of
WP:COI editing here, as there were at least two prior attempts to create an article about him at the title
Steuart Pittman, which consisted of a county employee trying to create the article by copy-pasting Pittman's own self-penned biography directly from the county website in defiance of our copyvio rules, and then trying to bypass the
WP:AFC process by moving it into mainspace themselves without the AFC review that was especially mandatory because of the COI.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just the routinely expected level of local media coverage that every county executive in every county always has.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer who died following a fight for a non-notable regional championship. He's only mentioned in reference to his death and almost certainly will not receive coverage for anything else. – 2. O. Boxing 20:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep to remind people the dangers of boxing and out of respect for his life. There are way more articles to go after than this one.-- 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8DDB:A685:D3EA:FA55 ( talk) 20:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I approved the WP:AFCH submission based on the widespread international coverage that the subject received. A quick search reveals many more sources that are not used in the article, such as CNN in the USA, News24 in South Africa, TribuneIndia. I agree that the subject's career as a boxer is not notable, however, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) state "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident". I would be OK with a rename (although I think it would be overly pedantic) but not a delete. Greenman ( talk) 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
A totally unknown political party, it has never participated in elections and is not mentioned in any relevant source. In practice, this party has limited itself to existing and nothing more. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. This title will also be salted. RL0919 ( talk) 19:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
See history of Greg Maluma and Gregson Maluma, both of which are now salted. All of the 'references' are self-published material. WP:BEFORE yields nothing. If this is somehow kept, it should be moved to Greg Maluma, which would need the protection removed. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 19:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow, don't think I've ever seen a star with so little coverage, even in large database listings, so it fails WP:NASTRO. It is brighter than magnitude 6.5, which was a sort of get out of jail free card in the past, not so much now. Despite that, not listed in the Bright Star Catalogue so far as I can tell. Has a faint companion, same distance, don't know if they're gravitationally bound, doesn't look like anyone has ever published on it. I could probably find out some basic physical data from catalogues, but it is hard to imagine writing much about this star. Lithopsian ( talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
No sources and no notability. There is a draft also. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Miss Intercontinental 2018
Beauty pageant that has already been found non-notable once. Does not even have any references, and so fails verifiability as well as notability.
Consider use of sodium chloride. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
City councilwoman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Previously deleted. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep Talk 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be plenty coverage, some examples:
Some less significant coverage, but worth noting:
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was one hundred thirty fourth, far short of the top 10 requirement. Also never appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 16:45, 12 June 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) 19:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was two hundred sixth, far short of the top 10 requirement. He also hasn't appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 16:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was Keep one, redirect rest. Redirecting all to century-based lists, except Solar eclipse of October 19, 1865. RL0919 ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an astronomical database or a catalogue. All of these partial solar eclipses merely happen to have occurred, but it is unlikely they are anything but WP:ROTM; and given how all of these occurred over mostly entirely unpopulated places, back in a time when this kind of data probably wasn't readily available (and who in his sane mind in the 19th century would have gone to Antarctica to observe a partial eclipse when such solar eclipses rather often, all across the globe?) it's unlikely any WP:SIGCOV, contemporary or otherwise, exists for any of these. As such delete for failing WP:NOT; or redirect to the appropriate list (but I'm not even sure whether those lists are appropriate, to begin with). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Very little impact to be suitable for an article. Well below WP:MINIMUM. Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 15:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE in both English and Italian (old name and new name) is not convincing about notability. A merge with Italian training ship Amerigo Vespucci might be an alternative for deletion. The Banner talk 15:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a bullet point list, redundant in addition to Category:Lists of accolades by film (169) Indagate ( talk) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Marraban Bin yauri
This article appears to be about a village, but is incomprehensible. It doesn't even say that the village is in Nigeria, which must be inferred. It does not establish geographic notability. It was moved to draft space once, and moved back to article space. If the village is a named inhabited place or otherwise notable, this article should be blown up and started over because the quality of the English is bad. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
KylieTastic i understood that wikepidia has policies and why some articles has not source and then published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Title is inherently subjective/POV, and thus fails WP:LISTCRIT. Who decides what is a "major" character? Are there really 45 major subsets of DC characters? Scope of a DC character list is already covered by the various lists at Lists of DC Comics characters, so there's not much point trying to rework this. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTPLOT as just plot and cast list. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage. Unnecessary extension of its episode list entry, plot could be condensed to max. 200 words per MOS:TVPLOT and moved across. Indagate ( talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This article, like the Shia jurisprudence and development, which has an XFD already, also reads like an essay, so doing the same for this one. Alpha Piscis Austrini ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. "Stats only" article about a local election. No secondary sources. North8000 ( talk) 14:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE does not bring up sufficient reliable, independent, in-depth sources. The Banner talk 12:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep: It meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, including WP:GNG.
... In practice, articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes ...The subject of this article is one of a handful of international-standard senior secondary schools in PNG (where the literacy rate is below 62% for 9 million people), and attended by some notable people/families in the country. [7]
-- Ham105 ( talk) 17:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Aside from already-present AllMusic review, found no reliable coverage. Album/singles did chart but if that's all the subject has I don't think that's enough for me. QuietHere ( talk) 03:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 12:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Approved by AFC reviewer, but is a mere copy of the original article, Living in the Age of Airplanes. This page seems to only serve as a new home for the templates, but the texts remain untouched in the original article. Don't see a purpose for this; perhaps a redirect can be made directing to the original article's music section, and the AllMusic exlink can be moved to the original's exlink section too. Gerald WL 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep overlapping coverage in the main article has now been removed and this article is now linked so it is now a valid split with a pass of WP:GNG due to reliable sources coverage as shown in the article in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
advertising The Banner talk 08:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. This closure is affected by the lack of a thoughtful and carefully composed deleiton rationale. Offering one word reasons for deletion is really not doing your due diligence as a nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
advertising The Banner talk 08:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nova Southeastern University. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable college, one of 15 within Nova Southeastern University, that does not warrant a stand-alone article. Otr500 ( talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:35, 12 June 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. No one came up with any indication of notability, by any criteria, although the delete arguments were disputed on technical grounds. So I guess this is, ahem, weak deleted. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Non notable film by a non notable director. It fails WP:NFILM that requires a film to be "widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 08:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost no sources except one to Facebook which doesn’t even point to this person’s Facebook page. Minor career with zero impact on any charts. Fails WP:SINGER. Egghead06 ( talk) 11:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
No hits on Newspapers.com. Nothing found in World Radio History, which archives a large number of music magazines.Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Trinity (story arc). This is the apparent consensus even though the redirect target has also been nominated for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Minor group of fictional characters that fail the WP:GNG. From what I can tell, this group only appeared in a single storyline consisting of a handful of issues, and were never used again. There is pretty much no coverage of this group in reliable sources, due to this complete lack of notability. The official DC Encyclopedia does not even dedicate an entry to this minor group. The article was WP:PRODed a couple years ago, but the PROD was removed without explanation, and this article has been sitting here unsourced since. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have opened
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity (story arc). There is consensus to redirect
Triarch unless
Trinity (story arc) is deleted, but one user has also argued that it needs to be moved first to make room for a different redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
11:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. There clearly is no consensus to keep this as an stand-alone article (despite the sole WP:BUTITEXISTS !vote); and I don't see why this was relisted, other than maybe some WP:RELISTBIAS. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Failed GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the sea near Antarctica, and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 ( talk) 09:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
10:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lawyer joke. Closing slightly early, per WP:SNOW. North America 1000 09:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This page is literally just a list of occasions when a particular pun was used. The fact that a pun has been used on TV doesn't make the pun notable ( WP:ITEXISTS). Amisom ( talk) 09:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 06:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. There is an extensive consensus that college soccer seasons do not have a presumption of notability under WP:NSEASONS unless the team has qualified for the NCAA Tournament, and this is an article for a season that hasn't even started yet, so it would be WP:TOOSOON. Recent consensus on this matter was reached here. Jay eyem ( talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 08:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 05:41, 12 June 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! 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 01:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a bit more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ho Chi Minh City Television. ✗ plicit 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect repeatedly contested without sources. Article in its current state does not pass WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion continued on the talk page following the last AfD and ended with agreement to return to AfD for deletion, seeing as there is no common literature on a commune "model of government" or even relating the various insurrections/revolutionary governments colloquially known as "communes". There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Pinging prior participants @ Otr500, Goldsztajn, Spinningspark, 力, and AusLondonder. czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The scope of this article is too broad (no clear direction) for a reader to learn exactly what is attempted to be portrayed. "Commune", as a political entity could be a
Participatory democracy, a
revolutionary government (Paris Commune), a
self-governing province (Jeju Province),
city-state (Principality of Monaco) or other "political organization" (from the article) such as a
state, that includes "...theories about a certain range of political phenomena." This article (last sentence in the opening paragraph) states: At its core, a commune is just an organization which creates social conditions that prioritize the primacy of the collective over the individual.
--- and there you have it. A commune as a model of government is a type of
Intentional community. This article branches into Marxist ideologies, the same as
State (polity), and delves into to
mini-communes (Intentional community that could include
squatters) and even workers-organizations. It
looks like
synthesis with some
original research thrown in.
Political philosophy articles need to be reliably sourced at every instance so we don't end up with
unsourced editors comments exampled by everything after the source: "This hypothetical is an example...". I do not see how chopping the article back to a stub can produce anything of encyclopedic value that is not covered somewhere else. --
Otr500 (
talk)
13:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
All of these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE listings of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most are not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and are otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not a fansite, an itunes directory, or, effectively, a database (which is what these lists are). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite.That is again (now for the fourth time) an unargued, plain proof by assertion. These pages are both WP:INDISCRIMINATE (due to sheer size; but also due to being "Summary-only descriptions of works.") and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (due to being, clearly, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.") Refusing to acknowledge the reality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and persisting with a personal, unsubstantiated opinion, will only make reality hit harder. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason; the above is definitively not "reasoning", since it shows no supporting evidence, no logically sound argument, lacks any attempt to engage with counter-arguments, and is pretty much an "I'm right you're wrong" monologue coupled with a blatant disregard for the facts (if List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal is not a "summary-only descriptions of works", then nothing is). As such I'll stop wasting time with people who flat-out refuse to argue about it, and let a reasonable closer come to their conclusion about how much weight these non-arguments should be given.
Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy.Still persisting with the false equivalence? Again, the Beatles list contains a total of 300 entries, all solidly backed up by reliable sources. List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal - on its own, ignoring all of the other similar lists nominated here, has 375; List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal has over a 1000; ... These lists are simply not comparable in any way due to sheer differences in scale; and the additional problems posed by WP:V issues mean they are really fatally flawed. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Can't seehow a list with over a thousand unsourced entries is INDISCRIMINATE? Too bad. If there are other similarly large and excessive, unsourced lists of works, they should also be deleted. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
but our article lists unsourced entries for all these songs. I cannot personally verify each of the hundreds of entries in the article within the course of this deletion discussion for obvious reasons, but it seems to me that there isn't a problem with sources not existing, and I disagree with the interpretation that this information does not have a place on Wikipedia when sources exist. The problem, then, ultimately lies in this article not carrying these sources. As
this essay eloquently puts it, an article which may currently... lack sufficient sources... can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.
Best,
DeluxeVegan (
talk)
16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Discography of an internationally notable artistis besides the point. In its present form, this fails WP:NOT. Whether the artist is notable or not does not mean that an excessive, unsourced and indiscriminate (most of these songs are not notable, and thus this fails WP:CSC as being an exhaustive listing that is clearly not reasonably short) is acceptable. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thousands of other similar articlesHow many of these literally include thousands of entries? How many of these lack so many sources it is probably more worthwhile to WP:TNT and start from scratch? How many lack any pertinent context and sources showing such except for basically a copy of the lead of the parent article? Simply saying "other similar stuff exists" is not convincing usually, even less so when the "similar" stuff is not actually similar to begin with... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:01, 16 June 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 06:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
While there exists sources ( [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]), I wouldn't consider the sum indicative of notability. SWinxy ( talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost entirely self-promotional, peacocking bio of a WP:GNG non-notable individual. Lots of sources, but none WP:RS except three, none of which however is WP:DEPTH/ WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:GNG. It's hard to see what this is even about, never mind if it should have an article. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
great writerseems almost like dubious aggrandisement. Thus, fails both WP:NOR and WP:V. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I was very close to closing this AfD with consensus to delete, due to notability concerns per WP:NLIST. The article itself contains no references to sources that discuss the topic of US cities and their areas, and why the area delineated by their borders is relevant or significant. The vast majority of this discussion didn't focus on finding or identifying sources that could be used to demonstrate the notability of this topic, which is, of course, required in order for any article to exist. However, towards the very bottom of the discussion, User:Newimpartial made a good faith effort to find a few sources. While these sources are somewhat tenuous in my opinion, I believe that they are just far enough over the line to cast doubt on whether this topic is non-notable, and push this discussion into "no consensus" territory. My advice for the editors working on this article would be to expand your search for sources that discuss the grouping of US cities by land area and include them in the article. Otherwise, this article will be at risk of being nominated for deletion again in a couple months' time (which, if it happens, should focus on a deeper analysis of the available sources to demonstrate notability). —ScottyWong— 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is obvious statistical trivia. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, particularly in cases like this where the only source is the WP:PRIMARY data from the US census. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articlesI fail to see what one would learn form this, except maybe answers to (ironically, since we're talking of "pop culture") trivia questions and some comparisons between big apples (yep, the Big Apple's on this list too) and random places in Alaska. Readers don't learn anything from lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; and merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl.Without reliable sources to support this, this is nothing more than WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information.(the comment was later removed). TompaDompa ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
third link is again unconnected with this present list. It provides the land area of each city it lists and also explains how a city's land area impacts density (using the comparison of San Francisco to Jacksonville).
a "nothingburger"(as you have also done). My prior belief - that people asking for sample sources at AfD are typically making a rhetorical move rather than, you know, actually asking for sources - is unfortunately confirmed. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Views are split between keep, merge and delete and I find it unlikely an agreement is going to happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This is obvious statistical trivia which appears to have been compiled as an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information.(the comment was later removed). TompaDompa ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada. —ScottyWong— 22:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTSTATS (since the sole purpose of this page is listing a few statistics, which can be and already are covered elsewhere) and is particularly redundant to Provinces and territories of Canada, where the most significant aspects of this are already covered. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.I don't think this article is an excessive list of unexplained statistics. On the contrary, I think it is well explained. I find it not confusing at all, in fact I find it clear. As per the guidance, the data is in tables and has explanatory text. The guidance suggests splitting things into separate articles, which is the opposite of what the nominator is proposing. My reading of this guidance is that if we are to follow the spirit and the technicalities of WP:NOTSTATS, then keep is the only logical conclusion. CT55555 ( talk) 03:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information.(the comment was later removed). TompaDompa ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Musical act with no reliable sources to indicate WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to NESN#Former. ✗ plicit 12:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced, minimal sourcing found. As a one-market show it's unlikely to have garnered media attention Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:34, 29 May 2022 (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
00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
No sourcing found, prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (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
23:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
other than sexual harassment accusation, not notable. WP:BLP1E applies. Not enough to be in Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Extent of notability unclear Mooonswimmer 22:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Chain seems to have existed, notability isn't apparent. Mooonswimmer 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't come up with significant ample coverage, not sure if notable. Lunde was chief editor of Aftenposten, Norway's most circulated newspaper. Would this fall under WP:JOURNALIST's "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" ? Mooonswimmer 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ottoman Turkish alphabet. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject matter doesn't seem to warrant a standalone page. Once translated, a sentence or two can be incorporated into Ottoman Turkish alphabet or similar articles. Mooonswimmer 22:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Could these additional sources be added to the article? Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
"Pytkeev space" is defined in a single 2000 paper, in terms so specialized we have no articles for them. The term is not in general use and easily confused with the "strong Pytkeev property". Links to weakly Fréchet–Urysohn space, an ad-hoc definition in the same paper.
Simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. IpseCustos ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Masurica for a thorough explanation of the problems with this article. Much of this information is fantastical. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 12 June 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 03:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Cartoonito (American programming block). Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable programming block, no sourcing found. Deprodded for literally no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:13, 12 June 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! 23:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced, fails NBIO and GNG as the sources are all churnalistic entrepreneur profiles. Created by a blocked user. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The case was not made that a redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No sourcing found in a WP:BEFORE. Found only false positives using the phrase "best sex ever" unrelated contexts. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
22:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Plebiscito.eu. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
A party that took part in an unofficial local election and of which it is almost impossible to find sources. It does not seems to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 22:00, 12 June 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed under new page patrol. No evidence of WP:notability. This is one person's theory. It appears that there is no in depth coverage of the theory except by the one person who created the theory, Ingo Piepers. It appears that 2-3 references criticized it. At least 5 (and probably more) of of the given references were written by Piepers. North8000 ( talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Italian Liberal Party (1997). Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
"Liberals for Italy" was nothing more than a label for a parliamentary subgroup affiliated with the Italian Liberal Party (1997) and subsequently for a list (directly connected to the Italian Liberal Party) that participated in the Italian general election of 2013 (scoring 0.08% of the vote). In practice, the little information contained in this page could easily be merged with Italian Liberal Party (1997), but I don't see any reason to keep an autonomous page for this label. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 21:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Result was Snow Keep. The nominator has been blocked for socking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole. TolWol56 ( talk) 01:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject has limited references, and seems to be WP:PROMO. I believe this subject fails WP:NBASIC. Sebastien1118 ( talk) 20:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete – see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPLIVE202. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Unreleased non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous
WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Website is clearly inactive. Previous nomination in 2016 conducted when website was still active. Page is an orphan. Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly. i would claim page no longer notable. Spiralwidget ( talk) 20:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Here's one spot: Outgrow.me, a digital marketplace for projects that were successfully funded on both Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. The site sorts its contents by "Orderable" and "Pre-orderable," as well as by topic and price. And it's "fine proof," The Next Web puts it, "that the Kickstarter concept does work despite the (admittedly warranted) pessimistic coverage of crowdfunded failures." ... On the one hand, Outgrow.me is both simple and inevitable: It's a catalog fit for the Kickstarter era. It sells, like any standard catalog does, knickknacks of varying value and utility -- some junky, some fantastic, some junky and fantastic at the same time. What's interesting about it, though, is that Outgrow.me is as much about selling a production process as it is about selling products."
The article notes: "The new Web site Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time."
The article notes: "Outgrow.me is a marketplace for Kickstarter and IndieGoGo projects that were successfully funded and are now available for purchase. Here, you can go beyond thinking about how cool it would be if something did come to market and start benefiting from all that the best of crowdfunding entails. ... The site does allow listings for projects that are successfully funded but can only be pre-ordered. We don’t know whether Outgrow.me restricts these based on the project’s level of readiness for the market, which again raises concerns about the failure of funded Kickstarter projects, but these can be filtered out quite easily right at the top of the homepage."
The article notes: "From an iPad stylus with pinpoint accuracy and sleek desktop jelly fish tanks to customizable 3-string guitars and zero-waste batteries, Outgrow.me makes it beyond easy to see — and spend money on — the best that Kickstarter and Indiegogo have to offer."
The article notes: "Sam Fellig has an answer in Outgrow.me. Mr Fellig started the e-commerce site last year as a programming project, while retraining to exit his old job working with homeowners who were trying to retain their houses in the event of foreclosure. He spotted a growing problem with crowdfunded products. ... More recent campaigns have learned from earlier ones' experience and are getting much better at meeting deadlines. Outgrow.me has every chance of living up to its name."
The article notes: "Outgrow.me solves that problem by featuring only Kickstarter and Indiegogo products that are either available for purchase or preorder. If it’s not on the site, it’s either not ready or it didn’t get enough funding."
The article notes: "So, where's the best place to shop for those Kickstarters? Try outgrow.me. This marketplace website collects the successfully launched gear in an attractive and easy-to-navigate online store. But buyer beware, they also showcase some of those products that aren't quite out of the launch bay (such as the examples above, or the Oculus Rift 3D headset)."
Regarding "Page is an orphan", per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Orphan status, this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.
Regarding "Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly", see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
The result was redirect to Lega Toscana. I've gone for this instead of a merge because consensus appears that there is little that could be added aside from a sentence or two, which would be minor work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
A totally unknown local party, that existed for a very short period of time. The page is written in five lines and only half of them concerns the party. Two sources are cited on the page, only one of them concerns the party and textually reads: "Riccardo Fragassi ... founded the Tuscan Federalist Alliance and then disappeared." It does not seem possible to find any other source except this one, which merely states that the party has existed and disappeared. Practically, this party is devoid of any kind of source and relevance. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete – see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPLIVE202. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Contested Prod by single purpose editor. Nothing seems to be notable about this company fails WP:GNG and more so WP:NCORP McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
20:38, 12 June 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) 20:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Low-level skiier that never placed on the podium or won a title, and maxed out at 23rd place, so we can't presume notability based on high achievement. No WP:GNG coverage located on a search. Long since retired so new coverage is unlikely to be generated. Only source currently is a database. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 12 June 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) 20:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
With WP:NFOOTY deprecated, notability is no longer presumed on a single professional appearance; WP:GNG must be met. No significant coverage located on a search. Even presuming the Norwegian News Agency source is SIGCOV (I haven't been able to find access to it to verify), a single source is insufficient to keep the article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 12 June 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) 20:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Low-level skiier that never placed on the podium or won a title, and maxed out at 19th place, so we can't presume notability based on high achievement. No WP:GNG coverage located on a search. Only source currently is a database. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
20:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a county executive, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of office is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia -- it's one where the sourcing and substance need to establish that he has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county executives. But that's not what's on offer here: this is essentially a résumé, referenced almost entirely to a mixture of
primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations that he's directly affiliated with, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all and
run of the mill coverage in community hyperlocals, with only one hit from a major
WP:GNG-worthy daily newspaper (which isn't enough all by itself.)
In addition, there's also a possibility of
WP:COI editing here, as there were at least two prior attempts to create an article about him at the title
Steuart Pittman, which consisted of a county employee trying to create the article by copy-pasting Pittman's own self-penned biography directly from the county website in defiance of our copyvio rules, and then trying to bypass the
WP:AFC process by moving it into mainspace themselves without the AFC review that was especially mandatory because of the COI.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just the routinely expected level of local media coverage that every county executive in every county always has.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer who died following a fight for a non-notable regional championship. He's only mentioned in reference to his death and almost certainly will not receive coverage for anything else. – 2. O. Boxing 20:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep to remind people the dangers of boxing and out of respect for his life. There are way more articles to go after than this one.-- 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8DDB:A685:D3EA:FA55 ( talk) 20:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I approved the WP:AFCH submission based on the widespread international coverage that the subject received. A quick search reveals many more sources that are not used in the article, such as CNN in the USA, News24 in South Africa, TribuneIndia. I agree that the subject's career as a boxer is not notable, however, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) state "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident". I would be OK with a rename (although I think it would be overly pedantic) but not a delete. Greenman ( talk) 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
A totally unknown political party, it has never participated in elections and is not mentioned in any relevant source. In practice, this party has limited itself to existing and nothing more. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. This title will also be salted. RL0919 ( talk) 19:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
See history of Greg Maluma and Gregson Maluma, both of which are now salted. All of the 'references' are self-published material. WP:BEFORE yields nothing. If this is somehow kept, it should be moved to Greg Maluma, which would need the protection removed. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 19:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow, don't think I've ever seen a star with so little coverage, even in large database listings, so it fails WP:NASTRO. It is brighter than magnitude 6.5, which was a sort of get out of jail free card in the past, not so much now. Despite that, not listed in the Bright Star Catalogue so far as I can tell. Has a faint companion, same distance, don't know if they're gravitationally bound, doesn't look like anyone has ever published on it. I could probably find out some basic physical data from catalogues, but it is hard to imagine writing much about this star. Lithopsian ( talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
No sources and no notability. There is a draft also. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Miss Intercontinental 2018
Beauty pageant that has already been found non-notable once. Does not even have any references, and so fails verifiability as well as notability.
Consider use of sodium chloride. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
City councilwoman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Previously deleted. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep Talk 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be plenty coverage, some examples:
Some less significant coverage, but worth noting:
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was one hundred thirty fourth, far short of the top 10 requirement. Also never appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 16:45, 12 June 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) 19:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was two hundred sixth, far short of the top 10 requirement. He also hasn't appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 16:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was Keep one, redirect rest. Redirecting all to century-based lists, except Solar eclipse of October 19, 1865. RL0919 ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an astronomical database or a catalogue. All of these partial solar eclipses merely happen to have occurred, but it is unlikely they are anything but WP:ROTM; and given how all of these occurred over mostly entirely unpopulated places, back in a time when this kind of data probably wasn't readily available (and who in his sane mind in the 19th century would have gone to Antarctica to observe a partial eclipse when such solar eclipses rather often, all across the globe?) it's unlikely any WP:SIGCOV, contemporary or otherwise, exists for any of these. As such delete for failing WP:NOT; or redirect to the appropriate list (but I'm not even sure whether those lists are appropriate, to begin with). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Very little impact to be suitable for an article. Well below WP:MINIMUM. Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 15:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE in both English and Italian (old name and new name) is not convincing about notability. A merge with Italian training ship Amerigo Vespucci might be an alternative for deletion. The Banner talk 15:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a bullet point list, redundant in addition to Category:Lists of accolades by film (169) Indagate ( talk) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Marraban Bin yauri
This article appears to be about a village, but is incomprehensible. It doesn't even say that the village is in Nigeria, which must be inferred. It does not establish geographic notability. It was moved to draft space once, and moved back to article space. If the village is a named inhabited place or otherwise notable, this article should be blown up and started over because the quality of the English is bad. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
KylieTastic i understood that wikepidia has policies and why some articles has not source and then published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Title is inherently subjective/POV, and thus fails WP:LISTCRIT. Who decides what is a "major" character? Are there really 45 major subsets of DC characters? Scope of a DC character list is already covered by the various lists at Lists of DC Comics characters, so there's not much point trying to rework this. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTPLOT as just plot and cast list. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage. Unnecessary extension of its episode list entry, plot could be condensed to max. 200 words per MOS:TVPLOT and moved across. Indagate ( talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This article, like the Shia jurisprudence and development, which has an XFD already, also reads like an essay, so doing the same for this one. Alpha Piscis Austrini ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. "Stats only" article about a local election. No secondary sources. North8000 ( talk) 14:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE does not bring up sufficient reliable, independent, in-depth sources. The Banner talk 12:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep: It meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, including WP:GNG.
... In practice, articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes ...The subject of this article is one of a handful of international-standard senior secondary schools in PNG (where the literacy rate is below 62% for 9 million people), and attended by some notable people/families in the country. [7]
-- Ham105 ( talk) 17:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Aside from already-present AllMusic review, found no reliable coverage. Album/singles did chart but if that's all the subject has I don't think that's enough for me. QuietHere ( talk) 03:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 12:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Approved by AFC reviewer, but is a mere copy of the original article, Living in the Age of Airplanes. This page seems to only serve as a new home for the templates, but the texts remain untouched in the original article. Don't see a purpose for this; perhaps a redirect can be made directing to the original article's music section, and the AllMusic exlink can be moved to the original's exlink section too. Gerald WL 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep overlapping coverage in the main article has now been removed and this article is now linked so it is now a valid split with a pass of WP:GNG due to reliable sources coverage as shown in the article in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
advertising The Banner talk 08:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. This closure is affected by the lack of a thoughtful and carefully composed deleiton rationale. Offering one word reasons for deletion is really not doing your due diligence as a nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
advertising The Banner talk 08:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nova Southeastern University. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable college, one of 15 within Nova Southeastern University, that does not warrant a stand-alone article. Otr500 ( talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:35, 12 June 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. No one came up with any indication of notability, by any criteria, although the delete arguments were disputed on technical grounds. So I guess this is, ahem, weak deleted. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Non notable film by a non notable director. It fails WP:NFILM that requires a film to be "widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 08:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost no sources except one to Facebook which doesn’t even point to this person’s Facebook page. Minor career with zero impact on any charts. Fails WP:SINGER. Egghead06 ( talk) 11:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
No hits on Newspapers.com. Nothing found in World Radio History, which archives a large number of music magazines.Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Trinity (story arc). This is the apparent consensus even though the redirect target has also been nominated for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Minor group of fictional characters that fail the WP:GNG. From what I can tell, this group only appeared in a single storyline consisting of a handful of issues, and were never used again. There is pretty much no coverage of this group in reliable sources, due to this complete lack of notability. The official DC Encyclopedia does not even dedicate an entry to this minor group. The article was WP:PRODed a couple years ago, but the PROD was removed without explanation, and this article has been sitting here unsourced since. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have opened
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity (story arc). There is consensus to redirect
Triarch unless
Trinity (story arc) is deleted, but one user has also argued that it needs to be moved first to make room for a different redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
11:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. There clearly is no consensus to keep this as an stand-alone article (despite the sole WP:BUTITEXISTS !vote); and I don't see why this was relisted, other than maybe some WP:RELISTBIAS. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Failed GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the sea near Antarctica, and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 ( talk) 09:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
10:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lawyer joke. Closing slightly early, per WP:SNOW. North America 1000 09:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This page is literally just a list of occasions when a particular pun was used. The fact that a pun has been used on TV doesn't make the pun notable ( WP:ITEXISTS). Amisom ( talk) 09:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 06:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. There is an extensive consensus that college soccer seasons do not have a presumption of notability under WP:NSEASONS unless the team has qualified for the NCAA Tournament, and this is an article for a season that hasn't even started yet, so it would be WP:TOOSOON. Recent consensus on this matter was reached here. Jay eyem ( talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 08:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 05:41, 12 June 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! 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 01:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a bit more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ho Chi Minh City Television. ✗ plicit 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect repeatedly contested without sources. Article in its current state does not pass WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion continued on the talk page following the last AfD and ended with agreement to return to AfD for deletion, seeing as there is no common literature on a commune "model of government" or even relating the various insurrections/revolutionary governments colloquially known as "communes". There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Pinging prior participants @ Otr500, Goldsztajn, Spinningspark, 力, and AusLondonder. czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The scope of this article is too broad (no clear direction) for a reader to learn exactly what is attempted to be portrayed. "Commune", as a political entity could be a
Participatory democracy, a
revolutionary government (Paris Commune), a
self-governing province (Jeju Province),
city-state (Principality of Monaco) or other "political organization" (from the article) such as a
state, that includes "...theories about a certain range of political phenomena." This article (last sentence in the opening paragraph) states: At its core, a commune is just an organization which creates social conditions that prioritize the primacy of the collective over the individual.
--- and there you have it. A commune as a model of government is a type of
Intentional community. This article branches into Marxist ideologies, the same as
State (polity), and delves into to
mini-communes (Intentional community that could include
squatters) and even workers-organizations. It
looks like
synthesis with some
original research thrown in.
Political philosophy articles need to be reliably sourced at every instance so we don't end up with
unsourced editors comments exampled by everything after the source: "This hypothetical is an example...". I do not see how chopping the article back to a stub can produce anything of encyclopedic value that is not covered somewhere else. --
Otr500 (
talk)
13:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
All of these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE listings of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most are not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and are otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not a fansite, an itunes directory, or, effectively, a database (which is what these lists are). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite.That is again (now for the fourth time) an unargued, plain proof by assertion. These pages are both WP:INDISCRIMINATE (due to sheer size; but also due to being "Summary-only descriptions of works.") and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (due to being, clearly, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.") Refusing to acknowledge the reality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and persisting with a personal, unsubstantiated opinion, will only make reality hit harder. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason; the above is definitively not "reasoning", since it shows no supporting evidence, no logically sound argument, lacks any attempt to engage with counter-arguments, and is pretty much an "I'm right you're wrong" monologue coupled with a blatant disregard for the facts (if List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal is not a "summary-only descriptions of works", then nothing is). As such I'll stop wasting time with people who flat-out refuse to argue about it, and let a reasonable closer come to their conclusion about how much weight these non-arguments should be given.
Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy.Still persisting with the false equivalence? Again, the Beatles list contains a total of 300 entries, all solidly backed up by reliable sources. List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal - on its own, ignoring all of the other similar lists nominated here, has 375; List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal has over a 1000; ... These lists are simply not comparable in any way due to sheer differences in scale; and the additional problems posed by WP:V issues mean they are really fatally flawed. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Can't seehow a list with over a thousand unsourced entries is INDISCRIMINATE? Too bad. If there are other similarly large and excessive, unsourced lists of works, they should also be deleted. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
but our article lists unsourced entries for all these songs. I cannot personally verify each of the hundreds of entries in the article within the course of this deletion discussion for obvious reasons, but it seems to me that there isn't a problem with sources not existing, and I disagree with the interpretation that this information does not have a place on Wikipedia when sources exist. The problem, then, ultimately lies in this article not carrying these sources. As
this essay eloquently puts it, an article which may currently... lack sufficient sources... can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.
Best,
DeluxeVegan (
talk)
16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Discography of an internationally notable artistis besides the point. In its present form, this fails WP:NOT. Whether the artist is notable or not does not mean that an excessive, unsourced and indiscriminate (most of these songs are not notable, and thus this fails WP:CSC as being an exhaustive listing that is clearly not reasonably short) is acceptable. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thousands of other similar articlesHow many of these literally include thousands of entries? How many of these lack so many sources it is probably more worthwhile to WP:TNT and start from scratch? How many lack any pertinent context and sources showing such except for basically a copy of the lead of the parent article? Simply saying "other similar stuff exists" is not convincing usually, even less so when the "similar" stuff is not actually similar to begin with... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:01, 16 June 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 06:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
While there exists sources ( [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]), I wouldn't consider the sum indicative of notability. SWinxy ( talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost entirely self-promotional, peacocking bio of a WP:GNG non-notable individual. Lots of sources, but none WP:RS except three, none of which however is WP:DEPTH/ WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:GNG. It's hard to see what this is even about, never mind if it should have an article. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
great writerseems almost like dubious aggrandisement. Thus, fails both WP:NOR and WP:V. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I was very close to closing this AfD with consensus to delete, due to notability concerns per WP:NLIST. The article itself contains no references to sources that discuss the topic of US cities and their areas, and why the area delineated by their borders is relevant or significant. The vast majority of this discussion didn't focus on finding or identifying sources that could be used to demonstrate the notability of this topic, which is, of course, required in order for any article to exist. However, towards the very bottom of the discussion, User:Newimpartial made a good faith effort to find a few sources. While these sources are somewhat tenuous in my opinion, I believe that they are just far enough over the line to cast doubt on whether this topic is non-notable, and push this discussion into "no consensus" territory. My advice for the editors working on this article would be to expand your search for sources that discuss the grouping of US cities by land area and include them in the article. Otherwise, this article will be at risk of being nominated for deletion again in a couple months' time (which, if it happens, should focus on a deeper analysis of the available sources to demonstrate notability). —ScottyWong— 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is obvious statistical trivia. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, particularly in cases like this where the only source is the WP:PRIMARY data from the US census. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articlesI fail to see what one would learn form this, except maybe answers to (ironically, since we're talking of "pop culture") trivia questions and some comparisons between big apples (yep, the Big Apple's on this list too) and random places in Alaska. Readers don't learn anything from lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; and merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl.Without reliable sources to support this, this is nothing more than WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information.(the comment was later removed). TompaDompa ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
third link is again unconnected with this present list. It provides the land area of each city it lists and also explains how a city's land area impacts density (using the comparison of San Francisco to Jacksonville).
a "nothingburger"(as you have also done). My prior belief - that people asking for sample sources at AfD are typically making a rhetorical move rather than, you know, actually asking for sources - is unfortunately confirmed. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Views are split between keep, merge and delete and I find it unlikely an agreement is going to happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This is obvious statistical trivia which appears to have been compiled as an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information.(the comment was later removed). TompaDompa ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada. —ScottyWong— 22:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTSTATS (since the sole purpose of this page is listing a few statistics, which can be and already are covered elsewhere) and is particularly redundant to Provinces and territories of Canada, where the most significant aspects of this are already covered. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.I don't think this article is an excessive list of unexplained statistics. On the contrary, I think it is well explained. I find it not confusing at all, in fact I find it clear. As per the guidance, the data is in tables and has explanatory text. The guidance suggests splitting things into separate articles, which is the opposite of what the nominator is proposing. My reading of this guidance is that if we are to follow the spirit and the technicalities of WP:NOTSTATS, then keep is the only logical conclusion. CT55555 ( talk) 03:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information.(the comment was later removed). TompaDompa ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)