![]() |
The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This individual does not seem to meet WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or the GNG. Although he's published a few scholarly articles, they haven't received nearly enough citations to meet NPROF crit. 1; associate professors don't meet NPROF crit. 5; his book (a published version of his doctoral thesis) does not seem to have garnered the reviews needed for a pass of NAUTHOR; a WP:BEFORE search found no GNG-qualifying coverage. Since he only received his Ph.D. in 2019, it is likely too soon for notability. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Nominated for PROD but was ineligible because it was previously deleted and recreated. Still no independent sources cited and I couldn't find any from a web search either, e.g. no significant mentions from the New York Times. Ruбlov ( talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deletion !votes are policy based, prior consensus is not binding, plus BLP with poor quality sourcing. Star Mississippi 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
To summarise the sources: half of them are blatant promotion (links to his Twitch, blog, IMDB, etc.), and there are a couple of interviews hosted by dodgy-looking websites. How is that SigCov? Ficaia ( talk) 08:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Lack of reliable, independent and significant sources, thus no GNG pass. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOX either. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.We would need two more examples of significant coverage from different organizations to meet the requirement. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
While this is a term that is in-use, there isn't sufficient coverage to justify an article separate from the overlapping concept of Orientalism (or alternatively, Eurocentrism). Unlike Mansplaining, a subject for which there is abundant and deep peer-reviewed coverage such as [1], [2], for Westsplaining all we have is mere mentions, trivial treatment in opinion pieces [3], more significant treatment, but still just an opinion piece, and an editorial published by a think tank. Looking at Google scholar, while there's a handful of hits for articles that use the term, ( [4]), I don't see any that analyze and discuss it in depth. Until we have in-depth coverage in peer-reviewed or equally high quality sources, I think that creating an article is premature and that readers are better served by restoring the redirect to Orientalism#Critical_studies or another article that more thoroughly covers the topic of West-centric analytical lenses. Based on the current sources, we fall short of WP:GNG and the existing article runs afoul of WP:DICDEF. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
language of the slavemasters? signed, Rosguill talk 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The article title does not match its content, being entirely about symbols of the Vinča culture. It is largely unreferenced, completely unstructured, and appears to be mostly created by copy-pasting pieces from articles relating to the Vinča symbols so there's not much, if anything, worth merging. Redirecting the page to Vinča symbols wouldn't be appropriate because the Vinča culture and Cucuteni–Trypillia culture are not synonymous. The article appears to have been created out of confusion in conflating the topics, and it's been neglected since then; it's best to simply delete it. Scyrme ( talk) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thus it appears that the Vinča or Vinča-Tordos symbols are not restricted to just the region around Belgrade, which is where the Vinča culture existed, but that they spread across most of southeastern Europe, and was used throughout the geographical region of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture.But this is unreferenced and, as far as I know, not true. In a paper from this year Johannes Müller says as much explicitly:
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. While there are 23 sources, none cover the subject in depth. Most offer only a brief mention of Sadler in relation to broader Trump administration controversies. Blurbs about her comments regarding John McCain do not contribute to GNG per WP:BLP1E. KidAd • SPEAK 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a notable event PepperBeast (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Another one of those Durham-only California geostubs apparently missed during the 2020/2021 cleanup. I suspect the coordinates in the article may be wrong - they're sending me to a place that is marked on a swamp in 1890s maps and is now a salt evaporation pond. Searching on newspapers.com brings up a few references to Mr. Larkin (whose wife was allegedly trying to kill him) living at Larkin's Landing, but nothing significant. This I can only get the snippet view of, but it likewise does not appear to be significant coverage. Searching is difficult because Larkinsville, Alabama was formerly known as Larkin's Landing and was quite significant in the 1800s, and Larkin, California, is also a place, but this one I can find really nothing about - it existed, but doesn't seem to have been overly significant and has become mostly lost to history. Hog Farm Talk 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded without rationale or substantial improvement. Does not meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 16:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
18:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was snow keep — strong consensus out of the gate that this is not a dictionary definition. Nominator has added a "keep" !vote that effectively withdraws the nomination. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
it doesn't seem to me there is any substantial information that would exclude this article from being deleted under WP:WINAD Kuralesache ( talk) 16:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Stats page masquerading as a biography on a tennis player that does not seem to pass WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG - similar case to Evangelina Olivarez. For the former, Fed Cup is no longer a valid claim to automatic notability and so GNG needs to be met. The article cites this CV but it is unacceptable as a source as it is not independent from Misiurova. The other sources are all stats pages so don't confer notability. No hits in Google News, only stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors in a Lithuanian source search and ProQuest only has passing mentions in results summaries, no actual detailed coverage of Misiurova. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Similar case to Evangelina Olivarez. Does not meet WP:NTENNIS as has never played in or won a tournament that would grant automatic notability (please note that Fed Cup no longer counts). WP:GNG does not appear to be met since only stats coverage seems to be available. Nothing in Google News or ProQuest or a Latvian source search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There are no substnatial sources connected to this article. It also fails our notability guidelines for Olympians. I searched for sources. All I came up with was a name drop in the report of the Olympics he was in, and another name drop. Not a single substantial source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow discussion on the source quality to continue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Even two weeks after the article was improved, we still have only one person advocating for keeping it. Sandstein 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
As I noted in my decline and draftification, none of these sources are legitimate - they're interviews or unreliable and his supposed "breakout roles" are 1-2 episode arcs or unnamed characters. He simply doesn't meet NACTOR at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 01:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet NBASIC. Majority of the sources are not significant or reliable. –– FormalDude talk 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and I don't see one forthcoming with opinions so different on the merits of the sources Star Mississippi 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. scope_creep Talk 17:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
scope_creep Talk 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The whole consists of routine coverage, press-releases and passing mention. None of it is significant meaning WP:SECONDARY. There isn't single profile on the person. It all incidental news. scope_creep Talk 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
13:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
That is your argument. None of that constitutes the WP:THREE requirement for three secondary sources which is the usual standard at Afd, except the first one. Secondly don't speak about UPE. You have no experience of it and it makes like a fool when you say things like that. Lastly if it is the case of No Consensus then in 6 months time I will be nominating it again, until I see at least three secondary sources. scope_creep Talk 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Other than the Prva Liga profile that I added, I could only find a passing mention in a blog. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they are the same people, you couldn't compare them based on Kadiri's picture, which can't be seen very well, and David and Gideon were born in the same year of the same Nigerian nationality and played for the same club Sloboda Uzice 2018-2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.57.5 ( talk) 09:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable, indeed, extremely obscure subject. PepperBeast (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Vexations ( talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
WP:INTERESTING is not a sufficient reason to argue keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Bafflingly contested prod. Rationale is exactly the same as when this was deleted in its original AfD (trivial offshoot of coLinux with no independent notabilitu), except that the project has now been dead for over a decade, and thus even the potential for future notability is gone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mensural notation. ✗ plicit 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Basically just a dictionary definition PepperBeast (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
All of this is achievable with non-administrator tools.
It's worth noting, by the way, that not everyone accepts Friedrich Ludwig's nomenclature. Stephen Parkinson considered it "cumbersome" and suggested "lineola".
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
08:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A search for reliable sources gives enough proof that the organisation exists, but no significant coverage. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 10:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
An accomplished Indian civil servant, however he meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of werewolves. And/or to Werewolf fiction. Consensus is that three articles about more or less the same topic is at least one too many ( WP:CFORK). What content to merge (if any), and where to is up to interested editors. Sandstein 16:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Almost entirely unsourced and rampant listcruft that fails WP:LISTN. The page werewolf fiction has the prose aspects of werewolves in popular culture, so this page is entirely unnecessary and was merely a misguided attempt to split off the crufty aspects of said page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Let me see if I can WP:FIXIT today with academic sources and the ones proposed above. Pilaz ( talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.) for literature [1] [2] [3] [4]; film [5] [6]; television [6] [7]; music [8]; video games [9]; anime and manga [10]; as well as folktales (not in the list) [11]. Categories that miss in-depth coverage: (non-manga) comics, (non-anime) cartoons. There are some excerpts here and there about comics (There was a long footnote about werewolves in Marvel comics, but I'm excluding it since it's only a footnote). I wouldn't oppose pruning the comics and cartoons list if they aren't covered by any work on werewolves.
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Worth noting, as an elected national politician. presumed notability applies via WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
BLP does not seem to meet
WP:NPOLITICIAN- he has not achieved the position of an elected member of parliament.
MrsSnoozyTurtle
10:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 8 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 12:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The topic does not meet Wikipedia's General notability criteria that fails WP:GNG. Need more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon ( talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Peepal Baba as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Notability of the Organization is in question. References are not enough to passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. DMySon ( talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kolovrat (band). Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM, no evidence notability. Searched, didn't find anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk)
10:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus as to the reliability and relevance of the sources at issue. Sandstein 09:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was never approved by anyone, and I don't think this article would meet any criteria. The focus of this article is heavily on the plastic surgery operations that they underwent to resemble Jimin of BTS. Though they released music they still do not meet WP:MUSIC. There's nothing significant about the subject. Their following count across social media accounts is huge but if that were to carry any weight then with that anyone with a decent following on social media could have their own article, but that is clearly not realistic. What really is notable about them other than the strange desire to look like another person? Though this has been discussed before it really needs to be reconsidered. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
— Maile ( talk) 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an articleThat is not how our notability policy works. Mlb96 ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions appear to be of the view that awards establish notability, which is not the case. Sources establish notability, because it is sources we need as a basis for writing a neutral, verifiable article. And the "keep" opinions don't tell us what if any sources are useful for this purpose in their view. Sandstein 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem to have any coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:N 162 etc. ( talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:32, 6 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 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Andrei Romanenko ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:31, 6 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! 03:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Local reporter, not famous outside devolving Scotland. Echo2019a ( talk)
The result was redirect to Economy of Belfast. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Not needed, probably can be a definition at Wiktionary KaptianKharisma ( talk) 03:01, 6 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! 03:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Not meeting WP:GNG. Also not big enough for WP:ENTERTAINER Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Can’t understand why this is notable. No links to realize WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 03:00, 6 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! 03:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
No links found that would help with WP:GNG policy of Wikipedia. A biography that is not notable. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Online advertising. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Dictionary definition whose only reference is a primary source from Google. This can just be a one-line description in online advertising or similar article. ZimZalaBim talk 01:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
02:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:41, 6 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Heavily WP:REFBOMBed and overly promotional puff piece on a marginal songwriter. According to this link, he only has credits on three low-charting singles. Most of the sources are PR publicity fluff, sales sites, or passive name-drops in the context of greater things (such as pointing out that he wrote a non-notable song on a Trace Adkins album). The closest I've come to finding decent sources is a "story behind the song" on " How Do You Get That Lonely", Teachenor's only contribution that seems to pass WP:NSONGS. He also has claims to charting on some small obscure independent and/or sales charts that do not pass WP:GOODCHARTS. What little coverage I did find was mostly "Jamie Teachenor co-wrote this song on this album" or local coverage of events at which he was one of many participants.
Also listing a band he was part of for much of the same reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded with the rationale, "strong and supportive reference added so code is removed". The two additional sources are just as strong and supportive as the other citations available in the article or in searches. In other words, they are simply brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this to give those holding the "keep" position a chance to concretely show how the subject is covered in-depth by independent, reliable sources, because currently none back up the assertions. As it stands, the arguments for deletion are far stronger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
02:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Being an also-ran on some show seems like an odd qualification for an encyclopedic biography, even when the article is padded with remarkable claims of achievement, such as getting married or getting pregnant (do note the abysmal level of coverage, from the worst sorts of tabloids). This is unsalvageable cruft, notability per WP:NMUSIC is not demonstrated, and should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Organisation does not seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Most of the sources are "Lost in the Cloud", which appears to be a personal blog. The others are random listicles about "viral" sheet music that only mention Stump/Faerie's Aire in passing and point out how funny and impossible it is, along with YouTube videos of people "attempting" to play it and then meta-commentaries from said listicles on the same. Nothing in this article whatsoever constitutes a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some new voices in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails to WP:WEP and Wikipedia:Notability, and there is no references. فيصل ( talk) 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
2016-01 ✗
PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Nguyễn Văn Tùng
Association football player who does not satisfy association football notability or general notability. This article consists only of a one-sentence lede, so that it cannot speak for itself and does not establish that there has been significant coverage. This is only a directory entry, but Wikipedia is not a directory. A reader should be able to look at an article and see why the subject is notable. This article was moved from article space to draft space once by User:Engr. Smitty, but was created again in article space, so that another draftification would be move-warring. Not enough information for an encyclopedia article even as a stub. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t find any coverage in good sources that give detailed news about the company. I don’t think it meets notability policy for companies. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 17:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:13, 6 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 14:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I tried to translate some sources but they don’t fit with policy for company notability. Didn’t find anything new also. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG PepperBeast (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Routine PR executive riddled with a non notable agency's "milestones" Yogiile ( talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete highly promotional article that's way off the mark. If this survives AfD, someone had better come up with a good source supporting the concept that he's a "best selling author", because judging by the amazon situation, that's a reality-stretch even for an advertising executive. Elemimele ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth userfying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete − The article's creator has an apparent connection to one of Kirshenbaum's companies. Painting17 ( talk) 22:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEO, only seems to be supported by one or two authors. Page has been complete orphan since 2011. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
That said, the article is not in a great shape overall, with the second half of the lede making various rather strong claims ("shows
" etc.) that should either be cited to independent references or removed. My !vote is Weak because I'm not too familiar with any guidelines/policies specific to books. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not seem to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:05, 6 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 14:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. He did receive some media attention, but I think it amounted to fifteen minutes of fame. PepperBeast (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This individual does not seem to meet WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or the GNG. Although he's published a few scholarly articles, they haven't received nearly enough citations to meet NPROF crit. 1; associate professors don't meet NPROF crit. 5; his book (a published version of his doctoral thesis) does not seem to have garnered the reviews needed for a pass of NAUTHOR; a WP:BEFORE search found no GNG-qualifying coverage. Since he only received his Ph.D. in 2019, it is likely too soon for notability. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Nominated for PROD but was ineligible because it was previously deleted and recreated. Still no independent sources cited and I couldn't find any from a web search either, e.g. no significant mentions from the New York Times. Ruбlov ( talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deletion !votes are policy based, prior consensus is not binding, plus BLP with poor quality sourcing. Star Mississippi 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
To summarise the sources: half of them are blatant promotion (links to his Twitch, blog, IMDB, etc.), and there are a couple of interviews hosted by dodgy-looking websites. How is that SigCov? Ficaia ( talk) 08:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Lack of reliable, independent and significant sources, thus no GNG pass. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOX either. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.We would need two more examples of significant coverage from different organizations to meet the requirement. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
While this is a term that is in-use, there isn't sufficient coverage to justify an article separate from the overlapping concept of Orientalism (or alternatively, Eurocentrism). Unlike Mansplaining, a subject for which there is abundant and deep peer-reviewed coverage such as [1], [2], for Westsplaining all we have is mere mentions, trivial treatment in opinion pieces [3], more significant treatment, but still just an opinion piece, and an editorial published by a think tank. Looking at Google scholar, while there's a handful of hits for articles that use the term, ( [4]), I don't see any that analyze and discuss it in depth. Until we have in-depth coverage in peer-reviewed or equally high quality sources, I think that creating an article is premature and that readers are better served by restoring the redirect to Orientalism#Critical_studies or another article that more thoroughly covers the topic of West-centric analytical lenses. Based on the current sources, we fall short of WP:GNG and the existing article runs afoul of WP:DICDEF. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
language of the slavemasters? signed, Rosguill talk 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The article title does not match its content, being entirely about symbols of the Vinča culture. It is largely unreferenced, completely unstructured, and appears to be mostly created by copy-pasting pieces from articles relating to the Vinča symbols so there's not much, if anything, worth merging. Redirecting the page to Vinča symbols wouldn't be appropriate because the Vinča culture and Cucuteni–Trypillia culture are not synonymous. The article appears to have been created out of confusion in conflating the topics, and it's been neglected since then; it's best to simply delete it. Scyrme ( talk) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thus it appears that the Vinča or Vinča-Tordos symbols are not restricted to just the region around Belgrade, which is where the Vinča culture existed, but that they spread across most of southeastern Europe, and was used throughout the geographical region of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture.But this is unreferenced and, as far as I know, not true. In a paper from this year Johannes Müller says as much explicitly:
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. While there are 23 sources, none cover the subject in depth. Most offer only a brief mention of Sadler in relation to broader Trump administration controversies. Blurbs about her comments regarding John McCain do not contribute to GNG per WP:BLP1E. KidAd • SPEAK 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a notable event PepperBeast (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Another one of those Durham-only California geostubs apparently missed during the 2020/2021 cleanup. I suspect the coordinates in the article may be wrong - they're sending me to a place that is marked on a swamp in 1890s maps and is now a salt evaporation pond. Searching on newspapers.com brings up a few references to Mr. Larkin (whose wife was allegedly trying to kill him) living at Larkin's Landing, but nothing significant. This I can only get the snippet view of, but it likewise does not appear to be significant coverage. Searching is difficult because Larkinsville, Alabama was formerly known as Larkin's Landing and was quite significant in the 1800s, and Larkin, California, is also a place, but this one I can find really nothing about - it existed, but doesn't seem to have been overly significant and has become mostly lost to history. Hog Farm Talk 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded without rationale or substantial improvement. Does not meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 16:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
18:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was snow keep — strong consensus out of the gate that this is not a dictionary definition. Nominator has added a "keep" !vote that effectively withdraws the nomination. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
it doesn't seem to me there is any substantial information that would exclude this article from being deleted under WP:WINAD Kuralesache ( talk) 16:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Stats page masquerading as a biography on a tennis player that does not seem to pass WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG - similar case to Evangelina Olivarez. For the former, Fed Cup is no longer a valid claim to automatic notability and so GNG needs to be met. The article cites this CV but it is unacceptable as a source as it is not independent from Misiurova. The other sources are all stats pages so don't confer notability. No hits in Google News, only stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors in a Lithuanian source search and ProQuest only has passing mentions in results summaries, no actual detailed coverage of Misiurova. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Similar case to Evangelina Olivarez. Does not meet WP:NTENNIS as has never played in or won a tournament that would grant automatic notability (please note that Fed Cup no longer counts). WP:GNG does not appear to be met since only stats coverage seems to be available. Nothing in Google News or ProQuest or a Latvian source search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There are no substnatial sources connected to this article. It also fails our notability guidelines for Olympians. I searched for sources. All I came up with was a name drop in the report of the Olympics he was in, and another name drop. Not a single substantial source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow discussion on the source quality to continue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Even two weeks after the article was improved, we still have only one person advocating for keeping it. Sandstein 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
As I noted in my decline and draftification, none of these sources are legitimate - they're interviews or unreliable and his supposed "breakout roles" are 1-2 episode arcs or unnamed characters. He simply doesn't meet NACTOR at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 01:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet NBASIC. Majority of the sources are not significant or reliable. –– FormalDude talk 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and I don't see one forthcoming with opinions so different on the merits of the sources Star Mississippi 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. scope_creep Talk 17:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
scope_creep Talk 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The whole consists of routine coverage, press-releases and passing mention. None of it is significant meaning WP:SECONDARY. There isn't single profile on the person. It all incidental news. scope_creep Talk 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
13:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
That is your argument. None of that constitutes the WP:THREE requirement for three secondary sources which is the usual standard at Afd, except the first one. Secondly don't speak about UPE. You have no experience of it and it makes like a fool when you say things like that. Lastly if it is the case of No Consensus then in 6 months time I will be nominating it again, until I see at least three secondary sources. scope_creep Talk 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Other than the Prva Liga profile that I added, I could only find a passing mention in a blog. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they are the same people, you couldn't compare them based on Kadiri's picture, which can't be seen very well, and David and Gideon were born in the same year of the same Nigerian nationality and played for the same club Sloboda Uzice 2018-2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.57.5 ( talk) 09:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable, indeed, extremely obscure subject. PepperBeast (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Vexations ( talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
WP:INTERESTING is not a sufficient reason to argue keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Bafflingly contested prod. Rationale is exactly the same as when this was deleted in its original AfD (trivial offshoot of coLinux with no independent notabilitu), except that the project has now been dead for over a decade, and thus even the potential for future notability is gone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mensural notation. ✗ plicit 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Basically just a dictionary definition PepperBeast (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
All of this is achievable with non-administrator tools.
It's worth noting, by the way, that not everyone accepts Friedrich Ludwig's nomenclature. Stephen Parkinson considered it "cumbersome" and suggested "lineola".
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
08:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A search for reliable sources gives enough proof that the organisation exists, but no significant coverage. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 10:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
An accomplished Indian civil servant, however he meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of werewolves. And/or to Werewolf fiction. Consensus is that three articles about more or less the same topic is at least one too many ( WP:CFORK). What content to merge (if any), and where to is up to interested editors. Sandstein 16:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Almost entirely unsourced and rampant listcruft that fails WP:LISTN. The page werewolf fiction has the prose aspects of werewolves in popular culture, so this page is entirely unnecessary and was merely a misguided attempt to split off the crufty aspects of said page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Let me see if I can WP:FIXIT today with academic sources and the ones proposed above. Pilaz ( talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.) for literature [1] [2] [3] [4]; film [5] [6]; television [6] [7]; music [8]; video games [9]; anime and manga [10]; as well as folktales (not in the list) [11]. Categories that miss in-depth coverage: (non-manga) comics, (non-anime) cartoons. There are some excerpts here and there about comics (There was a long footnote about werewolves in Marvel comics, but I'm excluding it since it's only a footnote). I wouldn't oppose pruning the comics and cartoons list if they aren't covered by any work on werewolves.
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Worth noting, as an elected national politician. presumed notability applies via WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
BLP does not seem to meet
WP:NPOLITICIAN- he has not achieved the position of an elected member of parliament.
MrsSnoozyTurtle
10:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 8 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 12:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The topic does not meet Wikipedia's General notability criteria that fails WP:GNG. Need more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon ( talk) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Peepal Baba as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Notability of the Organization is in question. References are not enough to passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. DMySon ( talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kolovrat (band). Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM, no evidence notability. Searched, didn't find anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Modussiccandi (
talk)
10:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus as to the reliability and relevance of the sources at issue. Sandstein 09:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was never approved by anyone, and I don't think this article would meet any criteria. The focus of this article is heavily on the plastic surgery operations that they underwent to resemble Jimin of BTS. Though they released music they still do not meet WP:MUSIC. There's nothing significant about the subject. Their following count across social media accounts is huge but if that were to carry any weight then with that anyone with a decent following on social media could have their own article, but that is clearly not realistic. What really is notable about them other than the strange desire to look like another person? Though this has been discussed before it really needs to be reconsidered. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
— Maile ( talk) 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
since no one seems to be interested in it then that shows that this person isn't really notable enough to have an articleThat is not how our notability policy works. Mlb96 ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions appear to be of the view that awards establish notability, which is not the case. Sources establish notability, because it is sources we need as a basis for writing a neutral, verifiable article. And the "keep" opinions don't tell us what if any sources are useful for this purpose in their view. Sandstein 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem to have any coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:N 162 etc. ( talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:32, 6 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 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Andrei Romanenko ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:31, 6 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! 03:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Local reporter, not famous outside devolving Scotland. Echo2019a ( talk)
The result was redirect to Economy of Belfast. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Not needed, probably can be a definition at Wiktionary KaptianKharisma ( talk) 03:01, 6 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! 03:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Not meeting WP:GNG. Also not big enough for WP:ENTERTAINER Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Can’t understand why this is notable. No links to realize WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 03:00, 6 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! 03:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
No links found that would help with WP:GNG policy of Wikipedia. A biography that is not notable. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Online advertising. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Dictionary definition whose only reference is a primary source from Google. This can just be a one-line description in online advertising or similar article. ZimZalaBim talk 01:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
02:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:41, 6 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Heavily WP:REFBOMBed and overly promotional puff piece on a marginal songwriter. According to this link, he only has credits on three low-charting singles. Most of the sources are PR publicity fluff, sales sites, or passive name-drops in the context of greater things (such as pointing out that he wrote a non-notable song on a Trace Adkins album). The closest I've come to finding decent sources is a "story behind the song" on " How Do You Get That Lonely", Teachenor's only contribution that seems to pass WP:NSONGS. He also has claims to charting on some small obscure independent and/or sales charts that do not pass WP:GOODCHARTS. What little coverage I did find was mostly "Jamie Teachenor co-wrote this song on this album" or local coverage of events at which he was one of many participants.
Also listing a band he was part of for much of the same reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded with the rationale, "strong and supportive reference added so code is removed". The two additional sources are just as strong and supportive as the other citations available in the article or in searches. In other words, they are simply brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this to give those holding the "keep" position a chance to concretely show how the subject is covered in-depth by independent, reliable sources, because currently none back up the assertions. As it stands, the arguments for deletion are far stronger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
02:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Being an also-ran on some show seems like an odd qualification for an encyclopedic biography, even when the article is padded with remarkable claims of achievement, such as getting married or getting pregnant (do note the abysmal level of coverage, from the worst sorts of tabloids). This is unsalvageable cruft, notability per WP:NMUSIC is not demonstrated, and should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Organisation does not seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Most of the sources are "Lost in the Cloud", which appears to be a personal blog. The others are random listicles about "viral" sheet music that only mention Stump/Faerie's Aire in passing and point out how funny and impossible it is, along with YouTube videos of people "attempting" to play it and then meta-commentaries from said listicles on the same. Nothing in this article whatsoever constitutes a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some new voices in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Fails to WP:WEP and Wikipedia:Notability, and there is no references. فيصل ( talk) 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
2016-01 ✗
PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Nguyễn Văn Tùng
Association football player who does not satisfy association football notability or general notability. This article consists only of a one-sentence lede, so that it cannot speak for itself and does not establish that there has been significant coverage. This is only a directory entry, but Wikipedia is not a directory. A reader should be able to look at an article and see why the subject is notable. This article was moved from article space to draft space once by User:Engr. Smitty, but was created again in article space, so that another draftification would be move-warring. Not enough information for an encyclopedia article even as a stub. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t find any coverage in good sources that give detailed news about the company. I don’t think it meets notability policy for companies. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 17:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:13, 6 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 14:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I tried to translate some sources but they don’t fit with policy for company notability. Didn’t find anything new also. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG PepperBeast (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Routine PR executive riddled with a non notable agency's "milestones" Yogiile ( talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete highly promotional article that's way off the mark. If this survives AfD, someone had better come up with a good source supporting the concept that he's a "best selling author", because judging by the amazon situation, that's a reality-stretch even for an advertising executive. Elemimele ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth userfying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete − The article's creator has an apparent connection to one of Kirshenbaum's companies. Painting17 ( talk) 22:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEO, only seems to be supported by one or two authors. Page has been complete orphan since 2011. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
That said, the article is not in a great shape overall, with the second half of the lede making various rather strong claims ("shows
" etc.) that should either be cited to independent references or removed. My !vote is Weak because I'm not too familiar with any guidelines/policies specific to books. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Subject does not seem to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:05, 6 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 14:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. He did receive some media attention, but I think it amounted to fifteen minutes of fame. PepperBeast (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)