![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Lots of weak references that I don't think add up to WP:BASIC. Being a guest on a show that won an Emmy is not the same as winning the Emmy. He touts himself as a musician but I aside from joining a band on tour, I don't know what his musical skills are. His main claim to fame now seems to be as a podcaster but his bio is really all over the map, with periodic columns on websites and listed "appearances" which I don't think can establish notability. I guessed at what categories to assign for deletion sorting as he mainly seems to be known for being known. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This article fails on several notability counts–two of the four sources are written by the article's subject–and both of the other sources fail to suggest the subject is notable outside of two failed initiatives. The notability banner has stood for over six months. I think its time to pack it in. Pbritti ( talk) 22:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. As much consensus as we will get Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 (see: this log). (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable band. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. nearlyevil 665 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable project, possible UPE, cannot establish WP:GNG, no SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil 665 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Sourced only to databases; fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and is mostly paraphrased from one source. Ironmatic1 ( talk) 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to I'm Not a Gun. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This article has been tagged for possible lack of notability and as needing more sources for verification since 2011 [ sic]. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. It was deleted via the PROD process in 2021, but restored upon request by an editor who has, however, not added any sources or anything else since then. Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Its clear the sourcing has not improved in GNG terms since the previous deletion and DRV consensus and, based on that, and the rough consensus here this is a clear outcome. I do feel that those editors declaring a possible interest should respectfully be accorded less weight then uninvolved votes and some of the other keep votes were bare assertions or not grounded in a policy based argument. Spartaz Humbug! 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination since the page was previously deleted following a deletion review. In my opinion the sourcing has not improved since the last time the article was deleted. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. These do not make any difference to Shah's notability, nor does padding the article with reams of primary sources that just say "we appointed Monisha Shah to our board". I'm usually all for giving deleted articles a second chance in draft space, but I have to say this time it seems like it has been used to subvert the consensus at AfD+DRV. And given the COI concerns in the last AfD, I don't think it's a "good look" that WMUK people have already showed up to circle the wagons here. A job with a WMF affiliate should not come with an exemption from Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. – Joe ( talk) 07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. – Joe ( talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources are trivial at best and non-contributory at worst. This is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals that litter the archives of AfD. WP:ANYBIO, which I think applies to this article and WP:GNG are not met. Plenty of mentions of this person but little about them. The addition of the sources that one-line mention the subject have the appearance of REFBOMBING. This is a board member with plenty of assignments and appointments, but lacks the strong secondary coverage to demonstrate notability. Jip Orlando ( talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
*Keep per WP:DOGOODER. Obviously more than borderline.
Begoon
12:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The subject of the article is primarily known only for a WP:SINGLEEVENT of formerly holding a record for the number of A-Level school exams taken. The article is written like a promotional page. The subject's journalistic career is not notable per WP:JOURNALIST. A shadowy figure ( talk) 02:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Ad and Notability Newbamboo ( talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I did searches for the subject's various names and could not find significant coverage about him. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.Deng Feng-Zhou ( simplified Chinese: 邓丰洲; traditional Chinese: 鄧豐洲; pinyin: Dèng Fēngzhōu; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Tēng Hong-chiu; born October 10, 1949, other names Deng Chang-dao 鄧昌島 or Shanyangzi 善陽子) is a Chinese poet, local history writer, Taoist Neidan academics and environmentalist.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG.
The all of the sources listed here are either primary, or trivial mentions. Sources include the secondary sources listed here: 1 , 2. These are somewhat reliable, but again, they're just trivial mentions.
For another example, the article lists her personal portfolio and college newsletter as sources. A personal portfolio is a primary source and doesn't necessarily credit notability and a college newsletter is a trivial publication at best.
I tried to search for some media publications on the subject but I couldn't find any that is a verified publisher or meets the notability standards (most of the sources being primary and trivial mentions). This article cannot be expanded as a result, as there is a severe lack of in-depth coverage to establish notability. Sparkl talk 16:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TNT close, please recreate based on the RSs. Spartaz Humbug! 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Some (maybe all) of the sources look very iff (and one or two do not even seem to support what they are being cited for). Slatersteven ( talk) 16:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
multiple sources are generally expected" as per WP:SIGCOV. The sources being in Hindi is fine: English language sources are generally preferred when available, but "
citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed" per WP:NONENG. How long are the relevant segments by Vyas and Sarkar? I also noticed that this siege/battle is mentioned in Ghasera Fort, cited to
Major General S. D. S. Yadava, 2006 Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India, Lancer Publishers, page 51-52., but I'd need someone more familiar with Indian publishing houses to chime in about whether that's reliable or not. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
more than a trivial mention, [without needing] to be the main topic of the source materialstandard of WP:SIGCOV even if this remains somewhat borderline. My !vote is also weak as I'm unable to personally assess the sources, and merely assuming good faith that the descriptions are accurate. I'll reconsider my !vote if concerns regarding the reliability of the three sources listed above are raised. - Ljleppan ( talk) 14:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable private intermediate school. PepperBeast (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. An article rewrite is called for, incorporating sources presented in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a non-notable concept that one scholar has used and which a string of non-RS (like Truthdig and Chris Hedges books) have mentioned. The page is a glorified blogpost for the scholar's rambling. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Promotional article about non-notable company, by ovious company representative The content is a list of brands and thhe customary cute opening story about how they got started. The justification in the previous AfDin 2007 for reasons expanded on the article talk page as : <tq> The uniqueness of Ego in the pharmaceutical industry being Australian owned and Australian made for more than 5 decades (one of only about 5 companies) The single focus of Ego on being the specialist in dermatology only. The staff of Ego living the company values which are embedded throughout The reputation of Ego throughout pharmacy across Australia. Ask your pharmacist in Australia or New Zealand about Ego. .</tq> with the note<tq>NB The author has knowledge of details of Ego and vouches for the accuracy of this data.</tq> DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to WHO (AM)#Personalities and programming as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
All primary sources, not seeing any review or commentary on them by independent sources. Slywriter ( talk) 13:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Football club article which is unsourced and a WP:BEFORE search yields very little. Google News only has this article, which is only a trivial mention of the club. An Indian source search comes up with plenty of social media accounts for this club but nothing else other than the same trivial mention from Google News. Potentially fails WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Searched in multiple places but can't find anything to pass WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG or even WP:V. See Google, Google Books, DDG etc. Draft:Anukul Charan Munshi already exists so unable to send to draft. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
List essentially pulled from this blog. No notable entries so nothing to merge to List of schools in Nigeria. Wikipedia is not a place for exhaustive lists of non-notable schools in any given area, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not seeing reliable sources covering this topic per WP:LISTN, blogs are not WP:RS. PROD not appropriate as 3 active users have recently edited this article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like an exhaustive directory list of non-notable schools which violates WP:NOTDIR. Notable schools already covered in List of high schools in Ecuador and List of universities in Ecuador. I don't see any justification for why this city needs to have a stand-alone list article for its schools. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 10:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a list of mostly non-notable football stadia. I would argue that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also struggling to see any significant coverage from reliable and independent sources regarding the topic of sports centres in Gombe State for WP:LISTN. Are they really any more notable than sports centres anywhere else? Not seeing why this needs an article. Thought about using PROD but the article creator is still active so would contest it. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This channel fails the general notability guideline. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 10:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MILL institution. No indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested.- MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film with only three sources, two of which are the film itself and a singular appearance at a film festival. Desertambition ( talk) 04:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Bsoyka
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vimeo | ![]() |
value not understood | ~ | ✘ No |
Raindance Film Festival | ~ Selling tickets for viewing the film | value not understood | ~ | ? Unknown |
Orania | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Mahananda (2022 film)
Article about an upcoming film that has two problems. First, it does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines. Second, none of the references satisfy the English Wikipedia's guidelines on independent reliable sources. This film is scheduled for release on 8 April 2022. Neither the article nor the sources say anything significant about production, only who did it (and every film was produced by someone, unless it wasn't). None of the references show any independence; they are all from the filmmaker, composer, or other associates. Most of them are Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but reliability is not sufficient, because a reliably reported puff piece and an unreliably reported puff piece are both still puff pieces.
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Reads like a press release. States that filming had resumed. | No | Yes | No. See WP:TOI | No |
2 | Indianexpress.com | Interview with filmmaker | No | Yes | Probably | No |
3 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Puff piece about music in film | No | No | No. | No |
4 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Interview with filmmaker | No | Yes | No | No |
5 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Same as 3, puff piece about music. | No | No | No | No |
6 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Announcement of release on 8 April | No | No | No | No |
As of about 0500 GMT, 20 March, there are both an article and a draft that have been tagged for history merge. The article was moved to draft space by User:DaxServer as not ready for article space, but was then copy-pasted back into article space, and the two pages have been tagged for history merge. The move to draft space has obviously been contested, so that AFD is the alternative to an alternative to deletion.
The current article is not even worth keeping in anticipation of the release of the film, because none of the sources are independent, so that it is just a pre-release promotional item. A Soft Delete is in order. Blow this up so that another editor who isn't trying to rush stuff into article space can write a reasonable article when the film is released. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:36, 1 April 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}} . |
Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 03:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Research#Research ethics. Even though the subject has potential, there was a consensus that its current incarnation is not suitable for an article in the mainspace. SpinningSpark or any other user may expand the redirect once more suitable content has been written. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Superfluous non-article consisting of a single, unref'd line and a grab-bag of links. Basically untouched for more than a decade. Alternately, could be redirected to Morality or Ethics of Science and Technology. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion.( WP:NEWARTICLE) If this is going to be worked on, it should be done in the draft or user space. Bsoyka ( talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
non notable local band thath asn't received any major coverage or critical reviews and has never charted. CUPIDICAE💕 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear whether GNG is met if NMUSIC is not
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Brian Ferriman. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yet another defunct Canadian record label. Deprodded with suggested merge to Warner Music Canada, but I could not find anything suggesting that this was ever actually a division of theirs. Searching "Savannah Records" + "Warner Canada" or "Savannah Records" + the names of the listed artists only turned up Wikipedia mirrors and Discogs. The closest I found to coverage was a 1985 ad for the Canadian Country Music Awards in Billboard which merely listed Anita Perras as a nominee. While most of the artists signed were notable, they all seem to be notable for releases on other labels and not so much for their Savannah Records work. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of mice by Apple, Inc.. Spartaz Humbug! 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
List of non-mouse controllers by Apple, Inc.
There are at least two problems with this list article. First, and most basic, it has no references, and so is not verifiable. Second, it is list cruft. It consists of a list of things that have very little in common except that they are not computer mice. It was moved to draft space by User:Buidhe as not ready for article space, and it was not ready for article space because it had no references. It has then been moved back to article space with the edit summary: "this content has been live for over a decade and is not draft material. if it is deemed inappropriate, AfD it properly". It is inappropriate because it has no references, and because the originator apparently doesn't care about that, or would have added references before moving it back to article space.
If references are provided, the next topic of discussion can be whether the list is useful or is list cruft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 12:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Biography of an actor, not
reliably sourced as passing
WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not all get an automatic free pass over NACTOR #1 just because the article has a filmography list in it -- actors having acting roles is literally the job description, so the notability test hinges not so much on listing roles as on the depth and quality of the media coverage that can be shown to support the significance of at least some of their performances. But this is referenced entirely to IMDB, the cast list of a single television episode in which he had a one-off bit part on the
self-published website of the program's own network, and a Twitter tweet -- none of which are notability-supporting sources at all.
As I don't have access to any archive in which I could personally retrieve British media coverage from the 1960s to 1990s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find proper sourcing to support the article -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any third party media coverage about him and his performances.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
likely to be notable. In this case, whether we consider their roles significant or not, it is clear that they fail WP:GNG and are not notable. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Organisation does not seem to meet WP:NORG- coverage in independent sources is WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Demonstrated to fail NPOL but pass GNG. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NPOL - mayorship of small town and county judgeship aren't high enough offices to ding the auto-notability criteria. I wasn't able to find sufficient sourcing (indeed any at all save what's in the article) to indicate a GNG/ANYBIO pass. Being the first of something only confers notability when sourcing reflects the importance of that achievement, which isn't borne out by the sourcing available here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment I wasn't able to find relevant sources. Thanks
Jamalahmadpk (
talk) 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:SOCKSTRIKE –
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
18:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Lots of weak references that I don't think add up to WP:BASIC. Being a guest on a show that won an Emmy is not the same as winning the Emmy. He touts himself as a musician but I aside from joining a band on tour, I don't know what his musical skills are. His main claim to fame now seems to be as a podcaster but his bio is really all over the map, with periodic columns on websites and listed "appearances" which I don't think can establish notability. I guessed at what categories to assign for deletion sorting as he mainly seems to be known for being known. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This article fails on several notability counts–two of the four sources are written by the article's subject–and both of the other sources fail to suggest the subject is notable outside of two failed initiatives. The notability banner has stood for over six months. I think its time to pack it in. Pbritti ( talk) 22:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. As much consensus as we will get Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 (see: this log). (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable band. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. nearlyevil 665 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable project, possible UPE, cannot establish WP:GNG, no SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil 665 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Sourced only to databases; fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and is mostly paraphrased from one source. Ironmatic1 ( talk) 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to I'm Not a Gun. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This article has been tagged for possible lack of notability and as needing more sources for verification since 2011 [ sic]. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. It was deleted via the PROD process in 2021, but restored upon request by an editor who has, however, not added any sources or anything else since then. Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Its clear the sourcing has not improved in GNG terms since the previous deletion and DRV consensus and, based on that, and the rough consensus here this is a clear outcome. I do feel that those editors declaring a possible interest should respectfully be accorded less weight then uninvolved votes and some of the other keep votes were bare assertions or not grounded in a policy based argument. Spartaz Humbug! 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination since the page was previously deleted following a deletion review. In my opinion the sourcing has not improved since the last time the article was deleted. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. These do not make any difference to Shah's notability, nor does padding the article with reams of primary sources that just say "we appointed Monisha Shah to our board". I'm usually all for giving deleted articles a second chance in draft space, but I have to say this time it seems like it has been used to subvert the consensus at AfD+DRV. And given the COI concerns in the last AfD, I don't think it's a "good look" that WMUK people have already showed up to circle the wagons here. A job with a WMF affiliate should not come with an exemption from Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. – Joe ( talk) 07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. – Joe ( talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources are trivial at best and non-contributory at worst. This is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals that litter the archives of AfD. WP:ANYBIO, which I think applies to this article and WP:GNG are not met. Plenty of mentions of this person but little about them. The addition of the sources that one-line mention the subject have the appearance of REFBOMBING. This is a board member with plenty of assignments and appointments, but lacks the strong secondary coverage to demonstrate notability. Jip Orlando ( talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
*Keep per WP:DOGOODER. Obviously more than borderline.
Begoon
12:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The subject of the article is primarily known only for a WP:SINGLEEVENT of formerly holding a record for the number of A-Level school exams taken. The article is written like a promotional page. The subject's journalistic career is not notable per WP:JOURNALIST. A shadowy figure ( talk) 02:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Ad and Notability Newbamboo ( talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I did searches for the subject's various names and could not find significant coverage about him. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.Deng Feng-Zhou ( simplified Chinese: 邓丰洲; traditional Chinese: 鄧豐洲; pinyin: Dèng Fēngzhōu; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Tēng Hong-chiu; born October 10, 1949, other names Deng Chang-dao 鄧昌島 or Shanyangzi 善陽子) is a Chinese poet, local history writer, Taoist Neidan academics and environmentalist.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG.
The all of the sources listed here are either primary, or trivial mentions. Sources include the secondary sources listed here: 1 , 2. These are somewhat reliable, but again, they're just trivial mentions.
For another example, the article lists her personal portfolio and college newsletter as sources. A personal portfolio is a primary source and doesn't necessarily credit notability and a college newsletter is a trivial publication at best.
I tried to search for some media publications on the subject but I couldn't find any that is a verified publisher or meets the notability standards (most of the sources being primary and trivial mentions). This article cannot be expanded as a result, as there is a severe lack of in-depth coverage to establish notability. Sparkl talk 16:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TNT close, please recreate based on the RSs. Spartaz Humbug! 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Some (maybe all) of the sources look very iff (and one or two do not even seem to support what they are being cited for). Slatersteven ( talk) 16:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
multiple sources are generally expected" as per WP:SIGCOV. The sources being in Hindi is fine: English language sources are generally preferred when available, but "
citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed" per WP:NONENG. How long are the relevant segments by Vyas and Sarkar? I also noticed that this siege/battle is mentioned in Ghasera Fort, cited to
Major General S. D. S. Yadava, 2006 Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India, Lancer Publishers, page 51-52., but I'd need someone more familiar with Indian publishing houses to chime in about whether that's reliable or not. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
more than a trivial mention, [without needing] to be the main topic of the source materialstandard of WP:SIGCOV even if this remains somewhat borderline. My !vote is also weak as I'm unable to personally assess the sources, and merely assuming good faith that the descriptions are accurate. I'll reconsider my !vote if concerns regarding the reliability of the three sources listed above are raised. - Ljleppan ( talk) 14:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable private intermediate school. PepperBeast (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. An article rewrite is called for, incorporating sources presented in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a non-notable concept that one scholar has used and which a string of non-RS (like Truthdig and Chris Hedges books) have mentioned. The page is a glorified blogpost for the scholar's rambling. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Promotional article about non-notable company, by ovious company representative The content is a list of brands and thhe customary cute opening story about how they got started. The justification in the previous AfDin 2007 for reasons expanded on the article talk page as : <tq> The uniqueness of Ego in the pharmaceutical industry being Australian owned and Australian made for more than 5 decades (one of only about 5 companies) The single focus of Ego on being the specialist in dermatology only. The staff of Ego living the company values which are embedded throughout The reputation of Ego throughout pharmacy across Australia. Ask your pharmacist in Australia or New Zealand about Ego. .</tq> with the note<tq>NB The author has knowledge of details of Ego and vouches for the accuracy of this data.</tq> DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to WHO (AM)#Personalities and programming as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
All primary sources, not seeing any review or commentary on them by independent sources. Slywriter ( talk) 13:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Football club article which is unsourced and a WP:BEFORE search yields very little. Google News only has this article, which is only a trivial mention of the club. An Indian source search comes up with plenty of social media accounts for this club but nothing else other than the same trivial mention from Google News. Potentially fails WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Searched in multiple places but can't find anything to pass WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG or even WP:V. See Google, Google Books, DDG etc. Draft:Anukul Charan Munshi already exists so unable to send to draft. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
List essentially pulled from this blog. No notable entries so nothing to merge to List of schools in Nigeria. Wikipedia is not a place for exhaustive lists of non-notable schools in any given area, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not seeing reliable sources covering this topic per WP:LISTN, blogs are not WP:RS. PROD not appropriate as 3 active users have recently edited this article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like an exhaustive directory list of non-notable schools which violates WP:NOTDIR. Notable schools already covered in List of high schools in Ecuador and List of universities in Ecuador. I don't see any justification for why this city needs to have a stand-alone list article for its schools. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 10:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a list of mostly non-notable football stadia. I would argue that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also struggling to see any significant coverage from reliable and independent sources regarding the topic of sports centres in Gombe State for WP:LISTN. Are they really any more notable than sports centres anywhere else? Not seeing why this needs an article. Thought about using PROD but the article creator is still active so would contest it. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This channel fails the general notability guideline. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 10:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MILL institution. No indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested.- MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film with only three sources, two of which are the film itself and a singular appearance at a film festival. Desertambition ( talk) 04:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Bsoyka
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vimeo | ![]() |
value not understood | ~ | ✘ No |
Raindance Film Festival | ~ Selling tickets for viewing the film | value not understood | ~ | ? Unknown |
Orania | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Mahananda (2022 film)
Article about an upcoming film that has two problems. First, it does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines. Second, none of the references satisfy the English Wikipedia's guidelines on independent reliable sources. This film is scheduled for release on 8 April 2022. Neither the article nor the sources say anything significant about production, only who did it (and every film was produced by someone, unless it wasn't). None of the references show any independence; they are all from the filmmaker, composer, or other associates. Most of them are Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but reliability is not sufficient, because a reliably reported puff piece and an unreliably reported puff piece are both still puff pieces.
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Reads like a press release. States that filming had resumed. | No | Yes | No. See WP:TOI | No |
2 | Indianexpress.com | Interview with filmmaker | No | Yes | Probably | No |
3 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Puff piece about music in film | No | No | No. | No |
4 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Interview with filmmaker | No | Yes | No | No |
5 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Same as 3, puff piece about music. | No | No | No | No |
6 | Timesofindia.indiatimes.com | Announcement of release on 8 April | No | No | No | No |
As of about 0500 GMT, 20 March, there are both an article and a draft that have been tagged for history merge. The article was moved to draft space by User:DaxServer as not ready for article space, but was then copy-pasted back into article space, and the two pages have been tagged for history merge. The move to draft space has obviously been contested, so that AFD is the alternative to an alternative to deletion.
The current article is not even worth keeping in anticipation of the release of the film, because none of the sources are independent, so that it is just a pre-release promotional item. A Soft Delete is in order. Blow this up so that another editor who isn't trying to rush stuff into article space can write a reasonable article when the film is released. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:36, 1 April 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}} . |
Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 03:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Research#Research ethics. Even though the subject has potential, there was a consensus that its current incarnation is not suitable for an article in the mainspace. SpinningSpark or any other user may expand the redirect once more suitable content has been written. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Superfluous non-article consisting of a single, unref'd line and a grab-bag of links. Basically untouched for more than a decade. Alternately, could be redirected to Morality or Ethics of Science and Technology. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion.( WP:NEWARTICLE) If this is going to be worked on, it should be done in the draft or user space. Bsoyka ( talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
non notable local band thath asn't received any major coverage or critical reviews and has never charted. CUPIDICAE💕 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear whether GNG is met if NMUSIC is not
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Brian Ferriman. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yet another defunct Canadian record label. Deprodded with suggested merge to Warner Music Canada, but I could not find anything suggesting that this was ever actually a division of theirs. Searching "Savannah Records" + "Warner Canada" or "Savannah Records" + the names of the listed artists only turned up Wikipedia mirrors and Discogs. The closest I found to coverage was a 1985 ad for the Canadian Country Music Awards in Billboard which merely listed Anita Perras as a nominee. While most of the artists signed were notable, they all seem to be notable for releases on other labels and not so much for their Savannah Records work. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of mice by Apple, Inc.. Spartaz Humbug! 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
List of non-mouse controllers by Apple, Inc.
There are at least two problems with this list article. First, and most basic, it has no references, and so is not verifiable. Second, it is list cruft. It consists of a list of things that have very little in common except that they are not computer mice. It was moved to draft space by User:Buidhe as not ready for article space, and it was not ready for article space because it had no references. It has then been moved back to article space with the edit summary: "this content has been live for over a decade and is not draft material. if it is deemed inappropriate, AfD it properly". It is inappropriate because it has no references, and because the originator apparently doesn't care about that, or would have added references before moving it back to article space.
If references are provided, the next topic of discussion can be whether the list is useful or is list cruft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 12:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Biography of an actor, not
reliably sourced as passing
WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not all get an automatic free pass over NACTOR #1 just because the article has a filmography list in it -- actors having acting roles is literally the job description, so the notability test hinges not so much on listing roles as on the depth and quality of the media coverage that can be shown to support the significance of at least some of their performances. But this is referenced entirely to IMDB, the cast list of a single television episode in which he had a one-off bit part on the
self-published website of the program's own network, and a Twitter tweet -- none of which are notability-supporting sources at all.
As I don't have access to any archive in which I could personally retrieve British media coverage from the 1960s to 1990s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find proper sourcing to support the article -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any third party media coverage about him and his performances.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MBisanz
talk
01:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
likely to be notable. In this case, whether we consider their roles significant or not, it is clear that they fail WP:GNG and are not notable. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Organisation does not seem to meet WP:NORG- coverage in independent sources is WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Demonstrated to fail NPOL but pass GNG. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NPOL - mayorship of small town and county judgeship aren't high enough offices to ding the auto-notability criteria. I wasn't able to find sufficient sourcing (indeed any at all save what's in the article) to indicate a GNG/ANYBIO pass. Being the first of something only confers notability when sourcing reflects the importance of that achievement, which isn't borne out by the sourcing available here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment I wasn't able to find relevant sources. Thanks
Jamalahmadpk (
talk) 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:SOCKSTRIKE –
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
18:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)