![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that this is not the same person as
Dipak Adhikari, who's also currently up for AFD in a separate discussion -- however, the creator of that article did try to make this one go away by arbitrarily moving it into draftspace and then blanking it solely in order to "clear the decks" for his pet topic.
So I've reverted that since it isn't proper process, but that doesn't mean the article itself is okay: it's an article about a journalist who isn't
properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. An article about a journalist needs to be referenced to sources in which he's the subject of coverage written by other people, but this is referenced almost entirely to sources where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not what it takes to make a journalist notable. And the only source that does actually meet the required standard just gives one blurb's worth of information about him in the context of having been one of 12 contributors to an anthology book, which isn't enough proper media coverage to pass
WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Article is written as if subject is a politician (fails WP:NPOL anyway). To me, this seems like a candidate for public office that has decent coverage in the media, but doesn't seem notable. PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 22:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The scope of this article is unclear, and the references are insufficient to present comics archaeology as a coherent subdiscipline. They are:
As to the subject rather than the author, it is clearly resting solely upon that one thesis. Some quick research turns up an OUP book, ISBN 9780190917944, on comic book studies a.k.a. comics studies, that does not describe the field as archaeological, not even in the list of disciplines from art history to media studies in chapter 37. Nothing that I can find corroborates the idea. This is fairly clearly a violation of our no original research policy. Delete.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The WP articles in other languages don't have any references to RS. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with Maaden, the company that owns this organization. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The WP articles in other languages don't have any references to RS. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with SABIC, the company that owns this organization. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
˙˙˙˙
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this person. Wikipedia is not a glorified LinkedIn. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. If there's any worthwhile content in this article, it can be merged with SAUDIA airlines. This organization is just a part of SAUDIA airlines, so it makes no sense to have a separate article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:V has been addressed (non-admin closure) — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Cannot find any sources that would count towards GNG. Should probably be redirected to a more general article. ( t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ron Rivera. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as the subject shows no independent notability. The only real reason he could be perceived as notable would be him being Ron Rivera's nephew. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 21:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
A quick Google search confirms what is true of so many such articles: there is no secondary sourcing of any value. The content is wholly unverified; in the history you will find more unsourced trivia. Drmies ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL, article is literally just a collection of rumors or unreleased product announcements. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. any editor in good standing is welcome to bring this for discussion if needed. Not rewarding socks/adding to the backlog of AfDs with a relist Star Mississippi 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Gaetr ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Jillian Gravey isn't notable for any event nor scientific discovery, if you google her name you will find 4 news articles, in which she's briefly mentioned in 3 and the other being an article about her research on the ancient Aboriginal practices, but still nothing special and definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC, of all 37 sources used in her article only two are secondary, the first one is a video that gives you an error when you try to play it and the other describes the discovery of a tooth of a Diprotodon that Garvey and her team discovered. SadAttorney613 ( talk) 19:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
No sources, therefore preventing verification. I also could not find anything of note in my WP:BEFORE check, but that might just be the language barrier. Kirbanzo ( talk - contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ioan was a non-medaling Olympian. There is no sourcing that I can find on him beyond the bare mention in the databse we have linked.This is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
"Chief Digital Officer" of Monaco, a country of 38,000 people. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either in the article or elsewhere online - fails WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 15:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I very recently closed afd 1 as delete but the creating editor has provided a new version. The sourcing appears substantially the same kind of not quite there stuff but a real effort has been made to expand the test so it only seems fair to have another discussion on the new sources. Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
And that's just one of the reviews. Luke Herrmann tells us who one of the other experts is. As such not only is this a stub this is a stub with scope for further expansion on the works of the biography subject from expert sources already (now) cited. The only question is why on Earth these weren't cited 5 years ago. It would have saved a lot of bother all around. This is why one always cites sources from the start.
very many ordinary writers and artists have books on Amazon. There's just not enough available about this person. Google, blogs, and archives are not reliable sources.Non-notable author; unless his writings begin to be internationally known 30 years after his death (let me tell you how likely THAT is) then this person doesn't belong on Wikipedia, due to simply not being that well known. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 ( did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There are some reviews on blogs and sources which do not appear reliable and some mentions through Google Books, but nothing I found would meet WP:ORGCRIT and therefore fails WP:NCORP. CNMall41 ( talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep.Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 11:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Film appears to fail WP:NFF. Should be deleted, Looks promotional attempt.
Note - Both artical the same guy created and that is both movies belongs to same production house Bhushan Kumar . Ghudchadi, Visfot Cinzia007 ( talk) 14:18, 16 March 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. Should Scottish Community Alliance be created down the line and someone wants the text to merge for attribution, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Stub article since its creation in 2008, hasn't been significantly improved since. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
<s>
at the beginning of your comment and </s>
at the end. That is the HTML code for
strikethough; you can see that I did it for your original (unsigned) comment. --
Drm310 🍁 (
talk)
16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2006. I did an extensive search but came up empty Timur9008 ( talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The page appears to have been created and edited by COI accounts. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
focus is to harness,
communities to advance Armenia as a nation,
thrivig ecosystem,
high-tech and innovations entrepreneur,
foster cross-disciplinary collaboration and facilitate discovery) Bsoyka ( talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable actor. Fails
WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work.
Cinzia007 (
talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
11:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Good rationale was given that the subject passes WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Unsuccessful candidate for Gwinnett County, Georgia school board; governor of Maryland; U.S. House of Representatives; and Charles County Board of Commissioners fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election KidAd • SPEAK 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
[an] unelected candidate for political office [..] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". I believe the references in the article clearly demonstrate the existence of WP:SIGCOV, so I suppose the only question is whether this is a case of WP:BIO1E. This, however, was already a topic of discussion in the previous AfD which resulted in keep. While consensus can certainly change, I think any BIO1E argument would be further hindered by the subject's second candidacy following the previous AfD. Let me know if I'm missing some relevant policy. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that this is not a NPOL case. People disagree whether GNG is met instead. To help arrive at consensus, please cite specific sources and explain why they provide (or do not provide) GNG-level coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the contentand
significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, the above sources clearly show that the man has been significantly covered by independent, reliable sources in the context of multiple events. This is what WP:GNG requires. Since he's clearly not a WP:BLP1E, this article should be kept. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate posted sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE. The lack of basic biographical details, such as his first name, date of birth, and date of death, means such coverage is unlikely to ever be found.
Article was procedurally kept in an AFD last month, with no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I do object to the hundreds, maybe even thousands of articles being made solely using this source.Bsoyka ( talk) 15:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Most coverage I found was routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 08:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is about Königsberg which already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Königsberg. Skyerise ( talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
unnotable anime series. heavily ref bombed. 晚安 ( トークページ) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Cannonball Run. It does not appear there's an issue with the similarly named band. If there is down the line, RfD and or a DAB can sort it out. At the moment, consensus is clear as a chaotic cannonball's path Star Mississippi 01:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article contains no assertion of notability, outside a passing, one sentence long praise by by critic in one book. My BEFORE found a few more passing mentions which suggest that the character is seen by some as a highlight of the film ( The Cannonball Run) but given the lack of WP:SIGCOV, that praise can be discussed in the film article. As such, I suggest we merge the one sentence of critic reception of this character to the film article (which currently doesn't mention this character outside plot summary and list of characters) and redirect it there. Prior AfD made a claim that there is lots of coverage but failed to cite any specific source outside a NYT-affiliated blog ( [5]) which also is not SIGCOV and all it is useful or is as a possible reference for the claim that this one one of Dom DeLuise more memorable roles (he did not, however, win any awards for it, nor is it even mentioned in prose in our biography of his). In the end, this seems like one more unnotable, WP:FANCRUFT trivia, an artifact of Wikipedia's early years where people wrote Wikia/Fandom-level content on Wikipedia. 20 years later we need move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. It is clear that this is a naming dispute and that nobody actually wants this page deleted. Renaming or merging should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad. We do not have two separate articles about Szczecin, Vilnus or Lviv despite analogical history. GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Folks, I’m not sure why you hold those bizarre views that to me still don’t make much sense, (this is the same blody city) but if this is the case then keep it constant and build two separate article for other cities in the same region of Russia such as: Baltiysk/ Pillau for example, and all these 23 other significant cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast --> [15] Come on, will you? :) ... right... I want to hear why not, but other than because "Kaliningrad is a special case etc." because it is not any different from 800 years Pillau or 500 years old Svetly other than size of those towns. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Rename this article to History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945 (per Michael)
Note: @ GizzyCatBella: This really should not be discussed in this venue. Wait until the deletion discussion is closed, then open a move discussion. If you want to get right to it, you could withdraw your deletion nomination per WP:SNOW. Skyerise ( talk) 20:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not notable enough. This is only a qualifying tournament for 2022 FIFA World Cup. FIFA does not request the Oceanian teams to submit fixed squads for it. Centaur271188 ( talk) 08:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Can I ask, why do "fixed squads" matter. Seems like every FIFA tournament these days allows for players to replace one another and more than a list of 23 to be given anyway? Also, can someone explain to me how a tournament used directly for a FIFA World Cup spot (or half spot, in this case) is "not notable enough", but Football at the 2017 Islamic Solidarity Games – Men's team squads passes? - J man708 ( talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Josedimaria237 ( talk) 12:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Non notable youth tournament, fails WP:GNG Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable academic, nothing inherently notable in the career details, and the sources cited are primary (and a search finds nothing better). Fails WP:GNG / WP:NPROF. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable make believe party that lacks even a passing mention on any news or academic sources. TolWol56 ( talk) 07:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Transcom. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Was nominated for deletion in 2007 and most people favored delete. Country20 ( talk) 02:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable company, appears to fail WP:CORP. Four references, two of which are from the company's website. Ajshul <talk> 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:28, 16 March 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 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable organization that appears to fail WP:ORG. No reliable sources can be found and the references listed no longer exist. Ajshul <talk> 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable entrepreneur, clearly fails GNG, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Chrisalder ( talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded without valid rationale or improvement. It gets coverage in the local papers, which one would expect, but not enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given the dePROD, or this could have been a soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, a substantial consensus has been reached that this article subject meets
WP:NCURLING.
BD2412
T
06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCURLING. Has only won provisional tournaments. Fails GNG ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vingtaine. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The island does exist but its not notable enough and if you search it up nothing comes up besides non reliable sources. The article also has no sources. The only thing I could find about this island was a Chinese documentary. `~HelpingWorld~` (👻👻) 13:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate if GEOLAND is met with the added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ab207 (
talk)
09:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one !vote per potential outcome. Mayhaps 3rd relist brings about consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This is purely directory information. The place for it is on their web site, where anyone would naturally look. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
What sort of information could make the page keep-worthy then? Many other shopping mall articles are also as you call "directories", reviews on those might be needed then. KtMystic ( talk) 16:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ab207 (
talk)
09:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. and I don't think another relist will bring one about. Star Mississippi 01:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Clearly non-notable, could not find any reliable sources in English or Japanese. — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The article notes from Google Translate: "The website "Uniform Map", which collects uniform photos of high school girls from all over Taiwan, has become a hot topic. Masamasa Ouyo (35), a maniac enthusiast in the field of uniforms, has spent 20 years and invested 1 million Taiwan dollars (about 3.84 million yen) in more than 300 high schools and 700 types of uniforms. Collected and launched the site."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The first app in China that can search for the uniforms of various high school vocational girls was launched yesterday. Some netizens combined photos of high school vocational girls' uniforms with the Google Map function to develop a "Uniform Map" app. ... The uniform map was developed by a netizen in the information industry "Red Reaper". Originally, it only provided the web version, but it was reposted to Taiwan by netizens a few days ago ( telnet://ptt.cc). It has exceeded 400,000 person-times."
The article notes from Google Translate: "First time in Taiwan! The "2014 Graduation Season - Taiwan University Uniform Awards", co-organized by the uniform map website and "High School Chronicle", is in full swing. More than 500 school uniform voting activities include almost all high schools in Taiwan."
The article notes from Google Translate: "It is understood that Uniform Map is collected by enthusiastic netizens, and the organizational structure is formed. The information is quite rich, but some school uniforms have not been collected in it. Although the database has not reached 100%, it is already quite a huge project."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The first APP 'Uniform Map' in China that can search for the uniforms of high school vocational girls was launched on the 6th. Netizens marked the school location with the google map function, matched with the school girls' uniforms, and also provided online likes and votes for which school uniform is the most beautiful."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The usage of 'Uniform Map' is similar to 'Google Map'. It is quite simple and easy to operate. The content includes almost all high school addresses in Taiwan, and the uniform photos of each high school girl are attached for users to enjoy. It sparked discussions among many netizens. Many netizens believed that such a website was too humane, and some netizens joked that they decided to follow the map to each high school pilgrimage."
The article notes that the website administrator is Jiang Shunzhi ( Chinese: 江舜智).
The article notes from Google Translate: "Taiwan's well-known uniform website 'Uniform Map' has launched a Chinese version, targeting more than 700 national junior high school uniforms in Taiwan."
The article notes from Google Translate: "On the Uniform Map of the beautiful girl student uniform, each small punctuation flag. It turned out to represent a high school or a vocational school, such as uniforms, short skirts, and black socks. These college uniforms are really pleasing to the eye. However, some netizens pointed out that the girls in some photos not only look like models with makeup on their faces, but not students of the school."
Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says:
The sources I provided demonstrate Uniform Map is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree with the assertion that "The references provided by Cunard are trivial at best, to not even about the topic at worst". Each of the six sources I linked provide significant coverage about the subject. Here my analysis about the first three:
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable, and does appear to be completely promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While redirects are cheap, delete !votes make a valid case for why it would not be appropriate to merge this. I am deleting, but there's no objection to a redirect if someone feels it's helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
When biologists at Mountain Lake Biological Station in Virginia conduct their annual survey of plants in the genus Silene that grow along the roads in a certain local area, they record their data in 40-metre lengths of roadside, which are called psilons (likely a pun on the name of the genus). And that's what the article is about. It's kind of cute, and there's something very attractive in the idea that Wikipedia can serve as a catalogue of obscurity and whimsy, but we do have inclusion standards and this is very far from passing them. The only coverage I'm able to find is passing mentions in a couple of papers, with the most detailed treatment found in a 1995 paper by Thrall and Antonovics ( doi: 10.1139/b95-385), which has half a paragraph explaining why 40 meters is a convenient size for those surveys. I was thinking the article could be redirected somewhere ( Mountain Lake (Virginia)#Mountain Lake Biological Station?), but I don't think there's a way to work even the tiniest mention into the prose without giving it undue weight. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not enough to meet WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:SPINOUT in my opinion. This is simply content pasted from each model's lead.
We have Nintendo DS#Later models summarizing each model. We have Seventh generation of video game consoles#Handheld game console comparison with a concise table, as well as Nintendo video game consoles.
Also, I do not believe moving this table to Nintendo DS is appropriate. Seems like undue weight. That article should focus on the original model: Player interaction with games, sales, and reception. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that this is not the same person as
Dipak Adhikari, who's also currently up for AFD in a separate discussion -- however, the creator of that article did try to make this one go away by arbitrarily moving it into draftspace and then blanking it solely in order to "clear the decks" for his pet topic.
So I've reverted that since it isn't proper process, but that doesn't mean the article itself is okay: it's an article about a journalist who isn't
properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. An article about a journalist needs to be referenced to sources in which he's the subject of coverage written by other people, but this is referenced almost entirely to sources where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not what it takes to make a journalist notable. And the only source that does actually meet the required standard just gives one blurb's worth of information about him in the context of having been one of 12 contributors to an anthology book, which isn't enough proper media coverage to pass
WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Article is written as if subject is a politician (fails WP:NPOL anyway). To me, this seems like a candidate for public office that has decent coverage in the media, but doesn't seem notable. PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 22:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The scope of this article is unclear, and the references are insufficient to present comics archaeology as a coherent subdiscipline. They are:
As to the subject rather than the author, it is clearly resting solely upon that one thesis. Some quick research turns up an OUP book, ISBN 9780190917944, on comic book studies a.k.a. comics studies, that does not describe the field as archaeological, not even in the list of disciplines from art history to media studies in chapter 37. Nothing that I can find corroborates the idea. This is fairly clearly a violation of our no original research policy. Delete.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The WP articles in other languages don't have any references to RS. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with Maaden, the company that owns this organization. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The WP articles in other languages don't have any references to RS. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with SABIC, the company that owns this organization. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
˙˙˙˙
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this person. Wikipedia is not a glorified LinkedIn. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. If there's any worthwhile content in this article, it can be merged with SAUDIA airlines. This organization is just a part of SAUDIA airlines, so it makes no sense to have a separate article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:V has been addressed (non-admin closure) — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Cannot find any sources that would count towards GNG. Should probably be redirected to a more general article. ( t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ron Rivera. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as the subject shows no independent notability. The only real reason he could be perceived as notable would be him being Ron Rivera's nephew. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 21:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
A quick Google search confirms what is true of so many such articles: there is no secondary sourcing of any value. The content is wholly unverified; in the history you will find more unsourced trivia. Drmies ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL, article is literally just a collection of rumors or unreleased product announcements. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. any editor in good standing is welcome to bring this for discussion if needed. Not rewarding socks/adding to the backlog of AfDs with a relist Star Mississippi 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Gaetr ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Jillian Gravey isn't notable for any event nor scientific discovery, if you google her name you will find 4 news articles, in which she's briefly mentioned in 3 and the other being an article about her research on the ancient Aboriginal practices, but still nothing special and definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC, of all 37 sources used in her article only two are secondary, the first one is a video that gives you an error when you try to play it and the other describes the discovery of a tooth of a Diprotodon that Garvey and her team discovered. SadAttorney613 ( talk) 19:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
No sources, therefore preventing verification. I also could not find anything of note in my WP:BEFORE check, but that might just be the language barrier. Kirbanzo ( talk - contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 23:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ioan was a non-medaling Olympian. There is no sourcing that I can find on him beyond the bare mention in the databse we have linked.This is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
"Chief Digital Officer" of Monaco, a country of 38,000 people. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either in the article or elsewhere online - fails WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 15:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I very recently closed afd 1 as delete but the creating editor has provided a new version. The sourcing appears substantially the same kind of not quite there stuff but a real effort has been made to expand the test so it only seems fair to have another discussion on the new sources. Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
And that's just one of the reviews. Luke Herrmann tells us who one of the other experts is. As such not only is this a stub this is a stub with scope for further expansion on the works of the biography subject from expert sources already (now) cited. The only question is why on Earth these weren't cited 5 years ago. It would have saved a lot of bother all around. This is why one always cites sources from the start.
very many ordinary writers and artists have books on Amazon. There's just not enough available about this person. Google, blogs, and archives are not reliable sources.Non-notable author; unless his writings begin to be internationally known 30 years after his death (let me tell you how likely THAT is) then this person doesn't belong on Wikipedia, due to simply not being that well known. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 ( did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There are some reviews on blogs and sources which do not appear reliable and some mentions through Google Books, but nothing I found would meet WP:ORGCRIT and therefore fails WP:NCORP. CNMall41 ( talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep.Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 11:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Film appears to fail WP:NFF. Should be deleted, Looks promotional attempt.
Note - Both artical the same guy created and that is both movies belongs to same production house Bhushan Kumar . Ghudchadi, Visfot Cinzia007 ( talk) 14:18, 16 March 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. Should Scottish Community Alliance be created down the line and someone wants the text to merge for attribution, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Stub article since its creation in 2008, hasn't been significantly improved since. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
<s>
at the beginning of your comment and </s>
at the end. That is the HTML code for
strikethough; you can see that I did it for your original (unsigned) comment. --
Drm310 🍁 (
talk)
16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Unreferenced since 2006. I did an extensive search but came up empty Timur9008 ( talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The page appears to have been created and edited by COI accounts. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
focus is to harness,
communities to advance Armenia as a nation,
thrivig ecosystem,
high-tech and innovations entrepreneur,
foster cross-disciplinary collaboration and facilitate discovery) Bsoyka ( talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable actor. Fails
WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work.
Cinzia007 (
talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
11:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Good rationale was given that the subject passes WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Unsuccessful candidate for Gwinnett County, Georgia school board; governor of Maryland; U.S. House of Representatives; and Charles County Board of Commissioners fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election KidAd • SPEAK 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
[an] unelected candidate for political office [..] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". I believe the references in the article clearly demonstrate the existence of WP:SIGCOV, so I suppose the only question is whether this is a case of WP:BIO1E. This, however, was already a topic of discussion in the previous AfD which resulted in keep. While consensus can certainly change, I think any BIO1E argument would be further hindered by the subject's second candidacy following the previous AfD. Let me know if I'm missing some relevant policy. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that this is not a NPOL case. People disagree whether GNG is met instead. To help arrive at consensus, please cite specific sources and explain why they provide (or do not provide) GNG-level coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the contentand
significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, the above sources clearly show that the man has been significantly covered by independent, reliable sources in the context of multiple events. This is what WP:GNG requires. Since he's clearly not a WP:BLP1E, this article should be kept. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate posted sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE. The lack of basic biographical details, such as his first name, date of birth, and date of death, means such coverage is unlikely to ever be found.
Article was procedurally kept in an AFD last month, with no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I do object to the hundreds, maybe even thousands of articles being made solely using this source.Bsoyka ( talk) 15:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Most coverage I found was routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 08:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is about Königsberg which already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Königsberg. Skyerise ( talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
unnotable anime series. heavily ref bombed. 晚安 ( トークページ) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Cannonball Run. It does not appear there's an issue with the similarly named band. If there is down the line, RfD and or a DAB can sort it out. At the moment, consensus is clear as a chaotic cannonball's path Star Mississippi 01:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article contains no assertion of notability, outside a passing, one sentence long praise by by critic in one book. My BEFORE found a few more passing mentions which suggest that the character is seen by some as a highlight of the film ( The Cannonball Run) but given the lack of WP:SIGCOV, that praise can be discussed in the film article. As such, I suggest we merge the one sentence of critic reception of this character to the film article (which currently doesn't mention this character outside plot summary and list of characters) and redirect it there. Prior AfD made a claim that there is lots of coverage but failed to cite any specific source outside a NYT-affiliated blog ( [5]) which also is not SIGCOV and all it is useful or is as a possible reference for the claim that this one one of Dom DeLuise more memorable roles (he did not, however, win any awards for it, nor is it even mentioned in prose in our biography of his). In the end, this seems like one more unnotable, WP:FANCRUFT trivia, an artifact of Wikipedia's early years where people wrote Wikia/Fandom-level content on Wikipedia. 20 years later we need move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. It is clear that this is a naming dispute and that nobody actually wants this page deleted. Renaming or merging should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad. We do not have two separate articles about Szczecin, Vilnus or Lviv despite analogical history. GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Folks, I’m not sure why you hold those bizarre views that to me still don’t make much sense, (this is the same blody city) but if this is the case then keep it constant and build two separate article for other cities in the same region of Russia such as: Baltiysk/ Pillau for example, and all these 23 other significant cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast --> [15] Come on, will you? :) ... right... I want to hear why not, but other than because "Kaliningrad is a special case etc." because it is not any different from 800 years Pillau or 500 years old Svetly other than size of those towns. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Rename this article to History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945 (per Michael)
Note: @ GizzyCatBella: This really should not be discussed in this venue. Wait until the deletion discussion is closed, then open a move discussion. If you want to get right to it, you could withdraw your deletion nomination per WP:SNOW. Skyerise ( talk) 20:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not notable enough. This is only a qualifying tournament for 2022 FIFA World Cup. FIFA does not request the Oceanian teams to submit fixed squads for it. Centaur271188 ( talk) 08:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Can I ask, why do "fixed squads" matter. Seems like every FIFA tournament these days allows for players to replace one another and more than a list of 23 to be given anyway? Also, can someone explain to me how a tournament used directly for a FIFA World Cup spot (or half spot, in this case) is "not notable enough", but Football at the 2017 Islamic Solidarity Games – Men's team squads passes? - J man708 ( talk) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Josedimaria237 ( talk) 12:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Non notable youth tournament, fails WP:GNG Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable academic, nothing inherently notable in the career details, and the sources cited are primary (and a search finds nothing better). Fails WP:GNG / WP:NPROF. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable make believe party that lacks even a passing mention on any news or academic sources. TolWol56 ( talk) 07:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Transcom. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Was nominated for deletion in 2007 and most people favored delete. Country20 ( talk) 02:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable company, appears to fail WP:CORP. Four references, two of which are from the company's website. Ajshul <talk> 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:28, 16 March 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 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable organization that appears to fail WP:ORG. No reliable sources can be found and the references listed no longer exist. Ajshul <talk> 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable entrepreneur, clearly fails GNG, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Chrisalder ( talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded without valid rationale or improvement. It gets coverage in the local papers, which one would expect, but not enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given the dePROD, or this could have been a soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, a substantial consensus has been reached that this article subject meets
WP:NCURLING.
BD2412
T
06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCURLING. Has only won provisional tournaments. Fails GNG ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vingtaine. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The island does exist but its not notable enough and if you search it up nothing comes up besides non reliable sources. The article also has no sources. The only thing I could find about this island was a Chinese documentary. `~HelpingWorld~` (👻👻) 13:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate if GEOLAND is met with the added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ab207 (
talk)
09:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one !vote per potential outcome. Mayhaps 3rd relist brings about consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This is purely directory information. The place for it is on their web site, where anyone would naturally look. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
What sort of information could make the page keep-worthy then? Many other shopping mall articles are also as you call "directories", reviews on those might be needed then. KtMystic ( talk) 16:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ab207 (
talk)
09:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. and I don't think another relist will bring one about. Star Mississippi 01:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Clearly non-notable, could not find any reliable sources in English or Japanese. — Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The article notes from Google Translate: "The website "Uniform Map", which collects uniform photos of high school girls from all over Taiwan, has become a hot topic. Masamasa Ouyo (35), a maniac enthusiast in the field of uniforms, has spent 20 years and invested 1 million Taiwan dollars (about 3.84 million yen) in more than 300 high schools and 700 types of uniforms. Collected and launched the site."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The first app in China that can search for the uniforms of various high school vocational girls was launched yesterday. Some netizens combined photos of high school vocational girls' uniforms with the Google Map function to develop a "Uniform Map" app. ... The uniform map was developed by a netizen in the information industry "Red Reaper". Originally, it only provided the web version, but it was reposted to Taiwan by netizens a few days ago ( telnet://ptt.cc). It has exceeded 400,000 person-times."
The article notes from Google Translate: "First time in Taiwan! The "2014 Graduation Season - Taiwan University Uniform Awards", co-organized by the uniform map website and "High School Chronicle", is in full swing. More than 500 school uniform voting activities include almost all high schools in Taiwan."
The article notes from Google Translate: "It is understood that Uniform Map is collected by enthusiastic netizens, and the organizational structure is formed. The information is quite rich, but some school uniforms have not been collected in it. Although the database has not reached 100%, it is already quite a huge project."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The first APP 'Uniform Map' in China that can search for the uniforms of high school vocational girls was launched on the 6th. Netizens marked the school location with the google map function, matched with the school girls' uniforms, and also provided online likes and votes for which school uniform is the most beautiful."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The usage of 'Uniform Map' is similar to 'Google Map'. It is quite simple and easy to operate. The content includes almost all high school addresses in Taiwan, and the uniform photos of each high school girl are attached for users to enjoy. It sparked discussions among many netizens. Many netizens believed that such a website was too humane, and some netizens joked that they decided to follow the map to each high school pilgrimage."
The article notes that the website administrator is Jiang Shunzhi ( Chinese: 江舜智).
The article notes from Google Translate: "Taiwan's well-known uniform website 'Uniform Map' has launched a Chinese version, targeting more than 700 national junior high school uniforms in Taiwan."
The article notes from Google Translate: "On the Uniform Map of the beautiful girl student uniform, each small punctuation flag. It turned out to represent a high school or a vocational school, such as uniforms, short skirts, and black socks. These college uniforms are really pleasing to the eye. However, some netizens pointed out that the girls in some photos not only look like models with makeup on their faces, but not students of the school."
Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says:
The sources I provided demonstrate Uniform Map is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree with the assertion that "The references provided by Cunard are trivial at best, to not even about the topic at worst". Each of the six sources I linked provide significant coverage about the subject. Here my analysis about the first three:
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable, and does appear to be completely promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While redirects are cheap, delete !votes make a valid case for why it would not be appropriate to merge this. I am deleting, but there's no objection to a redirect if someone feels it's helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
When biologists at Mountain Lake Biological Station in Virginia conduct their annual survey of plants in the genus Silene that grow along the roads in a certain local area, they record their data in 40-metre lengths of roadside, which are called psilons (likely a pun on the name of the genus). And that's what the article is about. It's kind of cute, and there's something very attractive in the idea that Wikipedia can serve as a catalogue of obscurity and whimsy, but we do have inclusion standards and this is very far from passing them. The only coverage I'm able to find is passing mentions in a couple of papers, with the most detailed treatment found in a 1995 paper by Thrall and Antonovics ( doi: 10.1139/b95-385), which has half a paragraph explaining why 40 meters is a convenient size for those surveys. I was thinking the article could be redirected somewhere ( Mountain Lake (Virginia)#Mountain Lake Biological Station?), but I don't think there's a way to work even the tiniest mention into the prose without giving it undue weight. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not enough to meet WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:SPINOUT in my opinion. This is simply content pasted from each model's lead.
We have Nintendo DS#Later models summarizing each model. We have Seventh generation of video game consoles#Handheld game console comparison with a concise table, as well as Nintendo video game consoles.
Also, I do not believe moving this table to Nintendo DS is appropriate. Seems like undue weight. That article should focus on the original model: Player interaction with games, sales, and reception. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)