The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Another list(icle) of media in which an otherwise notable topic appears in. This is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines ( WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). While mostly referenced and at least not failing WP:V, according to my BEFORE, this probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV. A SOFTDELETE alternative might be redirecting this to Columbine_High_School_massacre#Popular_culture, although that section is not very impressive. Nothing warrants merger, as this entire article is an ORish list of media mentions, without any analysis (i.e. reliable sources saying that depiction of the event in x is actually significant with regards to pop-culture). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While this would appear to be a no consensus by the numbers, the strength of !votes clearly tips this to delete as those have policy on their side. Those arguing this could be solved editorially have not provided policy based reasons to keep it. If someone believes there's significant Malaysian sourcing, I' happy to provide in draft. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
the managing director of a Malaysian aviation startup came on live chat and wanted to know why his company couldn't have an article, when inadequately-sourced articles like this one exist. He's right - I checked, and I don't think this one meets notability criteria. The sources cited are primary. I'm loath to delete it based solely on the complaints of a competitor, though.
Also, the company's been around for 50 years, so maybe I'm just not using the optimal search terms or looking in the right places. DS ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Three closely related interstitial shorts, not a single reliable source among them. As shorts and not full shows in their own right, they are far less likely to have ever received any WP:RS attention. Indeed, they get no relevant hits on Newspapers.com or ProQuest -- just tangential mentions or program directories. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Mike's Super Short Show was
previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Pastor of unclear notability. Article has no secondary sources. His ministry may be notable, but unsure if Kim is notable. Natg 19 ( talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources here are mostly primary sources, even on user-generated platforms, and many do not even mention the Internet Sanctions Project. It does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Internet Sanctions Projecton Google. The Washington Post piece [4] do not mention the project at all. It's just a quote by one of the founders? That poses two problems: 1) notability is not inherited, there may be some info due for the founder page, but that doesn't make this project notable, and 2) WP:ORGCRIT requires
significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that's simply not existent here. MarioGom ( talk) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? MarioGom ( talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to INNOVATE Corp. or a section thereof, should a defunct stations one be created Star Mississippi 02:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct LPTV station. No sources. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't discern whether this is a Keep vote here. Any suggestions on possible redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America 1000 01:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Merge the one or two sentences in the article to Turkic peoples, and then redirect. Mooonswimmer 23:12, 17 May 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 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:ALBUM. Mooonswimmer 23:10, 17 May 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 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable, unproduced comedy Mooonswimmer 23:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted by Cryptic under WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Tartar Torte 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
CSD G11 removed. Article is WP:PROMOTION Whiteguru ( talk) 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 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 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:36, 17 May 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 01:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:30, 17 May 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 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 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 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:23, 17 May 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 01:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 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 01:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is essentially just that his music exists, and the only source being cited is his own self-published profile on the website of his own self-owned record label, which is not a notability-assisting source -- and it's been flagged for the referencing problem since 2014 without ever having any new references added. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on real coverage in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 20:36, 17 May 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 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a band, not
properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are charting #102 on Canada's campus radio charts (a
WP:BADCHART that cannot establish musical notability, as it isn't
IFPI-certified), airplay on
CBC Radio 3 which is unverified as their name appears nowhere at all in the page that's being cited to support it, and a concert tour which is sourced solely by an unreliable blog and the band's own self-published website rather than the
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the tour that's actually required to pass the touring criterion.
This is, further, referenced almost entirely to blogs, university student media, the band's own website and other sources that aren't support for notability; there's just one citation to a real major daily newspaper, and even that's just their hometown newspaper giving them a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person, which means it would be fine for use if the other sourcing were stronger but can't vault them over GNG all by itself.
Essentially, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced a lot better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded without comment. Yet another "List of people on the postage stamps of X" article with zero encyclopedic content or sources. Expanding the list is doing nothing to improve its lack of value, its lack of sources, its lack of anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni ( talk) 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 18:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast. ✗ plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
A list with one item fails WP:NLIST. Gabe114 ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to strongly fail notability guidelines. A quick Google search ("Donald Coggan engineer") yields basically nothing. – Ploni ( talk) 18:44, 17 May 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 01:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet notability criteria, and clearly written by the subject ( User:Bediakoasare4). – Ploni ( talk) 18:24, 17 May 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 01:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. It can be difficult to find reliable sources online about notable Iranian people, but having searched the romanised and Persian spellings of his name online, I can only find that he did release an album, but not whether it had any chart success, news coverage, or won any awards. The one reliable-looking source I could find on him online [12] says that he wanted to buy a notable football club in 2016. Storchy ( talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician and writer, not making any strong or properly referenced claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NAUTHOR. The notability claim here is essentially that his work exists, which isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it in the media, but the referencing is entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or institutions. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in actual GNG-worthy media. Bearcat ( talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to John Salley#Television. ✗ plicit 01:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Zero sourcing found on Newspapers.com/ProQuest. Twinkle somehow failed to notice that this was previously prodded in 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Following "Outrageous" is "I Can't Believe You Said That," a shriek-a-thon game show hosted by former National Basketball Assn. star John Salley in which family members reveal embarrassing things about each other. "Quirky"? "Savvy"? Not unless those words have been radically redefined. The show is utterly bereft of edginess or even a camp quality. I can't believe they programmed that."
The result was Restore disambiguation. which I have done. Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Effectively double with FIFA World Cup qualification and UEFA European Championship qualifying. The Banner talk 17:21, 17 May 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 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There are references here, but per WP:CORP - quantity does not determine significance - the depth of coverage is fairly passing and routine for this small company. The article itself also lacks depth. Uhooep ( talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:41, 25 May 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:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Lacks quality book reviews to support his author claim. Also, the "Critical reception" or "Reception" section are generally used for books, not for authors. Besides that, most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. High probability; the page is a WP:UPE by an WP:SPA . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a radio personality, referenced exclusively to her own staff profile on the
self-published website of her own employer rather than any evidence of third-party
reliable source coverage. As always, broadcasters aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, but must have their work externally validated as significant by third-party sources: notable broadcasting awards, newspaper or magazine articles about her and her career, and on and so forth.
As I don't have access to databases in which I could recover archived British media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to those resources can find enough proper coverage to salvage this -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better sourcing than just her own employer's staff directory.
Note as well that the first discussion ten years ago is not definitive: radio presenters are not automatically notable just because they're on the radio, but rather she has to be a subject of coverage, in sources other than her own employer, in order to establish her significance. But the first discussion hinged entirely on "notable because she exists" rather than on any evidence that she could be brought up to a
WP:GNG-passing standard of sourceability.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There is only one source. This source contains a leaflet(primary source, because it is an exhibit). The commentary is not enough to make an article beyond WP:NOT#DICDEF. The company(Nordex Food) has no article on Wikipedia. Lurking shadow ( talk) 16:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Article which likely fails WP:NACTOR. A child actor who only appeared in one series ( Coronation Street) in a recurring role and has not had any other roles since. There is little, if any, media coverage about him and the article's only source is an archived profile of the character he played on the series' official website with no information on the actor himself. Koljanc ( talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vinh Long Radio Television. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I removed the speedy deletion because I didn't think it met that qualification. However, I believe this article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it doesn't seem to have the proper fit for an article. Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of Kaltariel ( talk · contribs) who prodded the article; as it was previously AFD'd in 2020, it's not eligible for prod. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable businessperson. All coverage appears to either be hyperlocal (inside the DC beltway), niche industry, and run-of-the-mill financial announcements about his various businesses. Paid creation and ongoing paid editing, some of which is likely undisclosed. valereee ( talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet another unsourced stub on a reality show too short-lived to have garnered attention Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 01:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Heartened by the success it’s found with documentaries about Osama bin Laden and waste in the federal government, CNN is debuting a new weekly investigative series this month to showcase long-form pieces by some of the network’s best-known correspondents. “CNN: Special Investigations Unit,” which will premiere Jan. 20, is the latest initiative at the cable news network, ... The new hourlong series, which will air Saturdays and Sundays at 5 p.m. with a repeat at 8 p.m., will feature work by chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and anchors Anderson Cooper and Soledad O’Brien as well as correspondents like John Roberts, John King and Candy Crowley. ... The first installment of “CNN: Special Investigations Unit” will be “The War Within,” a piece by Amanpour about Muslim extremism in Britain."
The abstract notes: "Using the linguistic method of discourse analysis, we analyze one high profile instance – an episode of CNN’s ‘Special Investigations Unit’, which aired several times in the summer of 2007 – to demonstrate a narrative linking of the high social costs and failures associated with noncompliance and, therefore, the imperative of enforcing it for the safety of society. Through the semiotic reduction of a ‘poetic parallelism’, the episode reflects and reinforces existing cultural models for mental illness, including its status as straightforward biological disease amenable to pharmacological therapy but which remains uncontrolled due to widespread noncompliance."
The article notes: "[former U.N. Ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew] Young was one of many interviewed in the recently aired special, "CNN: Special Investigation Unit, MLK-Words That Changed a Nation." ... In the program, reporter Soledad O'Brien interviewed Young and other colleagues of King including activist Dorothy Cotton, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and King's attorney, Clarence Jones. They divulged intimate information about the decisions that were made and key events of the civil rights movement including the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the arrest of Rosa Parks and King's assassination. The documentary also examines King's life through his library of writings and books housed at Morehouse College, his alma mater. James Polk, executive producer of the program, said Morehouse College and the city of Atlanta were very gracious to grant CNN access to the locked vault full of King's handwritten documents."
The book notes: "To illustrate the problem, we consider a case study involving a recent exclusive report from the CNN Special Investigations Unit by Drew Griffin, Kathleen Johnston and Todd Schwarzschild, titled "Sources: Air Marshals Missing From Almost All Flights". Dated 25 March 2008, and offered both in broadcast and on-line internet formats, the report cites official statistics and anecdotal evidence collected from interviews with both named and anonymous sources about the surprising paucity of armed air marshals accompanying passenger flights in the United States in the wake of terrorist hi-jacked airplane strikes against the World Trace Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on 11 September 2001. Here are some of the report's highlights from the network's website: [quote] This is attention-getting journalism. It touches a nerve for all people who travel by air or have friends and relatives who fly. ... What CNN informs us, and with apparently solid justification, is the startling fact that there are actually very few air marshals aboard US flights."
The article notes: "The episodes will run under the banner CNN: Special Investigations Unit. The series will focus on current pressing issues, and it is designed to complement CNN Presents, ... Special Investigations Unit will include reporters such as Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Soledad O'Brien, medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta and correspondents John Roberts, John King, Candy Crowley, Drew Griffin and others. The first episode, The War Within, will be reported by Amanpour."
The article notes: "With an assist from filmmaker Spike Lee, CNN's Soledad O'Brien took a chance on some amateurs in hopes of getting fresh perspectives on New Orleans' recovery at K+2. Almost all of the footage for "Children of the Storm," a CNN "Special Investigations Unit" documentary airing at 7 p.m. Wednesday, was shot by New Orleans-area teenagers."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) CHILDREN OF THE STORM Earlier this year the “American Morning” anchor Soledad O’Brien and the filmmaker Spike Lee gave 11 teenagers in and around New Orleans video cameras to create diaries as they rebuilt their lives after Hurricane Katrina. Their films are at the heart of this episode of “CNN: Special Investigations Unit,” in which the young people, four of whom are shown above with Ms. O’Brien, center, describe their journeys."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) NARCO STATE In this “CNN: Special Investigations Unit” documentary, Anderson Cooper traces the opium journey from poppy flower to addiction and examines how the drug is pushing Afghanistan into crisis."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT: BATTLEFIELD BREAKDOWN A report by John King on the costs of the Iraq war, in American lives and money, and the battle readiness of the Army’s active units."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) THE WAR WITHIN Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent, talks to young people, clerics and Shahid Malik, one of only four Muslim members of the British Parliament, about the cultural conflicts within Muslim communities in Britain and other Western societies, and the influences pushing some toward philosophies of extremism. The documentary inaugurates the network’s new series “CNN: Special Investigations Unit.”"
The article notes: "With one of the world's most extensive news-gathering organizations at its beck and call, CNN's Special Investigations Unit has chosen to commemorate the birthday of the late James Brown by telling the same old story in the same old way. ... There are a few times when the piece surprises. Although they have nothing new to say, some of the famous faces associated with Brown, but rarely heard from, are given some screen time, including former James Brown bass man Bootsy Collins, biographer Bruce Tucker and Usher, who was taken under the wing of the singer."
The article notes: "CNN Special Investigations Unit: Crime & Corruption As New Orleans attempts to recover from Hurricane Katrina, the city has struggled to overcome the culture of corruption that had become endemic to the Big Easy. Correspondent Soledad O’Brien speaks to the city’s first inspector general about his mission to root out mismanagement, and to prosecutors who are trying to curb the violence that hinders the return of residents, tourists, and business investment. Saturday, Aug. 30, at 8 p.m., CNN"
The article notes: "Residents from Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine will be featured in a CNN documentary that gives viewers a behind-the-scenes look at the lives of residents at Atlanta's Grady Memorial Hospital. "CNN: Special Investigations Unit - Grady's Anatomy" which follows the lives of three Emory residents and a Morehouse resident, will air at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. March 24 and 25."
The article notes: "Now a CNN Special Investigations Unit documentary examines the unexpected consequences of this protracted war. On "Battlefield Breakdown," CNN correspondent John King reports that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Army's 42 active brigades are rated unable to perform due to shortages of manpower and equipment, including armored vehicles, lithium batteries, even water. And he reports that, early on, the Pentagon resisted Congressional efforts to add more armored vehicles, perhaps mistakenly believing the war wouldn't last long enough to warrant the investment. "Battlefield Breakdown" premieres Saturday at 8 p.m."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. Appears to fail notability requirements for future films WP:NFF. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable youth team, all substantive sources I found were from US Soccer so it lacks independent coverage. Reywas92 Talk 13:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
PROD Does not meet criteria in
WP:SPORTBASIC. Simply a player.
was declined removing deletion request as has played loads of professional games so meets football player notability
. As we know from the metric ton of sports AfDs, that's no longer a notability criteria and I am unable to identify coverage that would meet GNG requirements. Just some game reports. Note when searching, it does not appear the sports exec is the same Drew Russsell. With appearances for multiple teams, there isn't a clear AtD target either.
Star
Mississippi
13:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics with the history underneath it, should someone find access to book sources with which to flesh this out. Star Mississippi 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Kądziołka not only did not win a medal (as part of a team) in the Olympics, his team did not even finish the competition they were in. So that really is not at all a sign of notability. It is also not a good sing when he is Polish, but the Polish Wikipedia article has one source, the same in English sports reference source used here. Olympedia has an entry with no text just sports tables. A search in google books came up with this name, but it was about a person born about 1920 who was being mentioned because as a schoolboy he was friends with someone who became an international leader. So this is not a good redirect target because most extant sourcing is about a totally different person who just happened to have the same name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: He was obviously a national athlete. The fact there are few digital references to him yet, doesn’t mean there aren’t many published written ones. Wikipedia is want to forget that Books still exist. If the project had deleted every unreferenced stub in its early days, half the best pages would never have been written. Who knows how this page may be expanded in the future - give it a chance. Giano (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Lacks independent sources, so she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Misleading; written in present tense, cites references from 2001 ie before the revolution. Actions in "eastern Ukraine" may be committed by Russian or Russian-backed troops Elinruby ( talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Adding: topic itself may possibly notable but this article does not support that. Elinruby ( talk) 12:01, 17 May 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. I concur with Joe Roe, but no one is contesting the deletion after another week. Star Mississippi 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I came across the page Linde Nijland as I was originally going to propose merging the page Ygdrassil (musical group) into it. However, I cannot find significant coverage for Nijland or her musical duo to satisfy the criteria at WP:NMUSIC, so I'm proposing that both be deleted. There's simply no media coverage, no reviews, no chart success, no releases on major record labels. The options are
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technically eligible for
soft deletion, but I don't want to delete two pages under that procedure, especially when the nominator is unclear about whether they actually favour deletion. Please note that the
language of coverage has no bearing on notability here on the English Wikipedia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk)
11:39, 17 May 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. I understand the redirect was challenged (courtesy @ Liz:) so I won't restore it, but rather treating this as an expired PROD as there is no one challenging the nomination based on information that currently exists. Star Mississippi 02:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
there is not enough material to justify a standalone page; probably because the subject is not notable. no sources other than some collections of estimates and vague numbers from sources that aggregate these statistics were found on a WP:BEFORE search. an attempt to redirect it to Religion in Bhutan was reverted. TryKid dubious – discuss 05:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. For some reason stops in 1969, and despite the claim of being complete until then, it misses e.g. Pierre and Marie Curie (1938) and Churchill, Lincoln and Kennedy (1965). Not improved since 2010, and was viewed by 9 people in the last 90 days, so not a topic of interest for our readers either. Fram ( talk) 10:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. whether or not lists of planets exist,there is consensus against this one. Star Mississippi 02:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea at all what the actual purpose of this article is. A municipality of less than 10,000 inhabitants has a number of official documents available for inhabitants, just like most other communities in the world. Why it would be a good idea to have an article that informs us that Santa Margherita Ligure has an "Application for household allowance 2022", a "Request form 1 hour in Blue zone for residents only" or a "Specification for home composting" is unclear. If you need a formal reason, total lack of notability. Fram ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I see concerns over the purpose of an article like this however I firmly believe that wikipedia articles warrant more detail and with both Santa Margherita Ligure and Contern I’m attempting to sort of set an example if you will. Of the absolute maximum which isn’t excessive. I also am quite certain that this isn’t excessive as there are many communes which have various documents but Santa Margherita Ligure has a lot more than anywhere else ive seen and also has far more variety. Additionally the town is more than a town of 100000 it has a rich history, intricate and sceneic geography, a large tourism industry and is famous amongst many parts of italy unlike most other towns of 10000. Therefore it warrants more détail generally which I feel includes the list of documents. I would make it a part of the main article but there is simple too many of them. This is a necessary step in the expansion of the article of the original town. Also due to the intricate geography and large ammounts of tourism in the town. Most documents are more notable as they often refer to road closures, beach closure and what can affect a larger number of people. Finally Wikipedia is no stranger to lists like this, I’m trying to take a step to make wikipedia more detailed when it comes to municipalities and towns. Sure it might be the tinyest bit excessive but Wikipedia changes and also the larger this article is, the more people will be detered into expanding other articles on the site N1TH Music ( talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability and abandoned article. Sakiv ( talk) 09:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable VP of a Bangladeshi University. All references are primary. Article does not meet WP:NBIO Whiteguru ( talk) 08:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mythdon (
talk •
contribs)
09:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This seems like a totally unreferenced fork of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in popular culture. The argument I used there applies here in its entirety: "Arguably, a very interesting topic. Possibly notable (ex. the existence of works like [27]), but not in this WP:TNTable form of a completely unreferenced TVtropic listcruft aka List of all media that mention the topic of war (the lead even admits the goal: "The following is a list of pop culture references to war."). Like all similar articles (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture), it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. That's what TV Tropes is for, folks. Or https://military-history.fandom.com". I'll also ping editors who commended so far at that other AfD: @ Reywas92, Rorshacma, Daranios, Johnpacklambert, TenPoundHammer, and Kierzek: @ Zxcvbnm, Azuredivay, Intothatdarkness, Georgethedragonslayer, Shooterwalker, and Jclemens: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is clear at this point, after extended time for discussion, and there is no reason to anticipate that relisting will yield a substantially different result. This close in no way forecloses proposals to merge other content into this material, or to merge this article elsewhere.
BD2412
T
05:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
PRODded by Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs) on concerns that this is largely WP:DICDEF-level material and WP:OR, and fails WP:GNG. I have reason to believe that this is the case, but it was deprodded by Lurking shadow ( talk · contribs), who asserted, without further justification, This isn't PROD material. Some content is also about specific products, failing WP:IINFO. Note that some sources also spell it spin up or spinup.
The first source is a manual for a Western Digital product that mentions spin-up only in passing. The second is effectively an informative advertisement from Fujitsu, and is not WP:RS.
Power-up in standby was proposed for merger in September 2014 by Petr Matas ( talk · contribs), but no merge discussion was opened and the tag was removed in July 2017 by Klbrain ( talk · contribs). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
are just two sources I found here. Lurking shadow ( talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
09:26, 18 May 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 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, nor could I find WP:RS mentioning either the series or any of its games. Appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Rejected at AFC but moved here by creator, so here we are with a non notable topic. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:43, 17 May 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 14:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage, just trivial mentions 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. While we have a language issue and a BLP, consensus is sufficient sources exist. Star Mississippi 02:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This individual doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. No Olympic medals, only competed in one particular Games in 1980. Feels like doesn't meet GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
06:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:59, 17 May 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 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. This ( 1) is the best I could find. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The article appears to have been created solely for promotional purposes and have very few reliable sources to back the statements made in the article, and from my personal research, not a lot are available.
Per WP:NBAND, the band has had no charting singles or albums, has never been signed to a major label, and also appears to no longer be active, so it's likely that no notability will be established over time. Magatta ( talk) 17:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
i can't find anything in depth about any iteration of this company - it all appears to be average business announcements/acquisitions/parroted press releases and as it stands now, our entire article is basically just a press release as well. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
PRODded by Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs), who noted the lack of sources that claime dthat it fails WP:GNG. Deproded by Spinningspark ( talk · contribs), who claimed (without improving the article) that this is definitely a thing seen in numerous martial arts films and provided an external link about the technique. However, neither the source the deprodder provided nor the existing external link in the article seem to be RS, and my search engine results offer no further sources about the technique under this name.
The disambiguation page Spin up (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the base title, even if this article is kept, since there is no primary topic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:32, 17 May 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 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
WP: ORG, looks to be closed now Happyecheveria ( talk) 03:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Here TV#Programming as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 02:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable podcast. Current sources barely mention it. Only lasted six episodes. Tagged for notability and sources. Prod contested in September. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"Like catty chat? Dig well-matched duos? Love Ryan and Simon's banter on Idol, but just wish it was rues macho? You're in luck". The solo paragraph in the Blade means the Gazette
The article notes: "If you were watching two well-groomed hosts on here! TV talking about closeted celebrities and CorbinFisher.com, you’d assume they were gay, right? Yes, ben harvey and dave Rubin of The Ben and Dave Show are indeed queer. But the cute two-some (who have an easy, almost brotherly on-air rapport) give a new definition to “straight-acting.” Give your gaydar a workout when the show premieres on Friday, March 14."
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. The references all appear to be paid puff pieces, and he still hasn't had a major role in a notable film or video since the last AFD in September 2021. I don't see any significant coverage of him online in reliable sources since then, just some more puff pieces for a lead role in a science fiction show which doesn't seem to have materialised yet. Storchy ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:30, 17 May 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. ✗ plicit 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Listcruft. This is the main page for a list of players who have played in a semi-professional basketball league in the Philippines, most of whom are redlinked. No sourcing, and I assume verifiability is going to be a nightmare......and that's assuming that a list of players who played in a sports league is inherently notable, which it isn't.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the branches which actually contain the contents of the list which is being discussed:
fuzzy510 ( talk) 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. this could be closed as no consensus, but really we don't even have a strong nomination nor !vote to delete, since both were countered by the sources provided. Merger is a viable AtD and it makes sense to cover an event within the organizer's article when there isn't a size issue. Star Mississippi 01:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There may be two official websites (including one from Australia) and a Flickr page. But other than that, there seems to be no reliable sources for this event. Pahiy ( talk) 03:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe the article meet the WP:N criteria, due to the significant coverage from Bulgarian media about the driver. I would add more sources if needed, but I believe the current ones were enough to cover the article. Chris Calvin ( talk) 10:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chris Calvin ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Single-sentence article about the one-off use of the term mana in discourse about Anglo-Saxon kingship. The entire content of the article is:
The word Mana has occasionally been used to describe the concept of life force [1] or charisma, [2] in Anglo-Saxon culture.
References
- ^ Bates, Brian (2003). The Real Middle Earth: Magic and Mystery in the Dark Ages. Pan Books. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4039-6319-2.
- ^ Chaney, William A. (1970). The cult of kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: the transition from paganism to Christianity. Manchester University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN 978-0-7190-0372-1.
For a more detailed rationale, see the talk page posts reproduced below:
Proposed Deletion
This article is factually incorrect from the start and has no way of being edited into a better form. The earliest reference from William Chaney does not support what the article asserts: that such a term as mana exists. It simply does not in Old English, nor is it used in discourse today. Chaney's book uses mana as it exists in Austronesian languages and nothing more. The more recent citation of Brian Bates is guilty of original research and is not reliable. ( A review from May 2014 shows some such issues.) Attempting to verify further, the word is not found in Bosworth-Toller ( a search brings up unrelated things), nor does it come up in Grimm, Pollington, or even Germanic neopaganism sources. Additionally, the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England made it so that Wodan did not matter as a god proper, but rather he was euhemerised for the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. Anything before Christianisation is poorly documented and belongs to prehistory. The example is thus flawed. Yugure ( talk) 06:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- merge with Mana
As the above discussion indicates, this article appears to be based on a confusion created by the use of the Polynesian word mana in anthropology as a generic term for social power, charisma etc. This usage of the word is already described in Mana#The_academic_study_of_mana. There certainly does not need to be an entire article describing its application to a single culture. I therefore propose that this article be merged into the section Mana#The_academic_study_of_mana. -- 109.159.56.105 ( talk) 05:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The page had previously been redirected, but there's agreement that the redirect is not suitable ( RfD). – Uanfala ( talk) 11:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Not notable per WP:NBOOK and a lack of significant coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
*Delete - insufficient coverage to meet the relevant notability guideline. Only one article and not of significance.
Such-change47 (
talk)
11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
"A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the criteria"- so yes will it might have one an award (one of the criteria) it still must meet WP:GNG as winning an award is only an indicator not definer of notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
They've done a lot, but nothing that seems to pass WP:BAND. Current sources are all promotional or primary. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:56, 17 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
After pruning the poorly or unsourced information in this article, we're not left with much. I can't find any coverage of Swift/Cook under either name that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. There's no meaningful reviews of his books from any of the typical reliable sources and no coverage of his other works or him as an actor or competitor in a netflix show. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The Previous AfD several years ago closed to no consensus, but I think the main systemic problem remains. This runs afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG, focused on comparing Apple's entire lineup in a way sources don't (do sources exist talking about "which iPhone I should get"? Absolutely. Do they either do it with this level of detail? I don't see the source-based evidence for that.) The listings also include stuff like pricing info that absolutely make it read as sales rather than encyclopedia. This is also information that's also unnecessarily duplicated from individual lines, where the comparisons make much more sense; to quote Czar in the previous AfD, "The difference between each refresh of a product fits within the scope of each product's individual article." That basically nothing is directly and clearly cited is the cherry on top. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)The result was keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Further discussion about whether the page would be better as a disambiguation page or redirect can continue at the appropriate venue. Mojo Hand ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Principal council is a term seemingly no longer commonly used in England ( at least by the UK Government), but is in Wales by the Welsh Government. The very short article itself simply defines the term by reference to legislation, but the relevant information about principal councils is instead included in the local government articles for England and Wales. Therefore, I think it best deleted. FollowTheTortoise ( talk) 18:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article is still of stubby quality and with questionable sources, but consensus appears to be that the sources presently in the article suffice for it to be kept.
BD2412
T
05:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be sourced almost exclusively from YouTube and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES without establishing any external and independent coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of source quality would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi ( talk) 13:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I created this many years ago but I don't think he passes WP:NMUSIC despite one charted hit. He's been featured on a few tracks, but his only solo release charted very very low. The current sources are all 404 except for one news article that barely says anything about him. World Radio History, which archives music magazines from the era, revealed nothing but false positives and directories. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:28, 17 May 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 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Article contains 20 cites but 12 aren't about the organization and don't mention it at all, 6 mention it in passing only, and the remaining 2 cites (#4 and #5) though they do mention the organization up to 3 times, they are not articles about the organization per se (its history, directors, accomplishments, headquarters with actual physical address, etc.) but simply that the organization was involved in some advocacy activity. WP:OR is very clear, at WP:PSTS, that article notability is to be established by secondary sources and this article contains not a single secondary source. It also states articles may contain tertiary sources; this article contains none. Finally, all 20 sources in this article are all primary sources (newspapers) which are not sufficient in and of themselves to establish notability -- especially when only one of the (WAPA-TV) can be considered mainstream (required by WP:PSTS). In addition, the article's Talk Page has, for over 1-1/2 years, questioned its notability, but no actions were taken by the articles editors to attend to it in any manner that would had provided the secondary sources required. Finally, the article also had a warning tag on it, also for well over a year, questioning its notability but, again, no one has been able to prove its notability. For these reasons the article should be deleted. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Found one review but nothign else. Just a bunch of PR fluff. Prod contested without valid comment Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bicester#Schools content is under the redirect if consensus develops for a merge Star Mississippi 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL - lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider whether a redirect or a merge to a different target page would be best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
AssumeGoodWraith (
talk |
contribs)
00:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Weak delete. I believe there is enough material for reasonably detailed background, lyrics, critical reception, commercial performance, and live performance sections. Some material in sources not cited in the article include XXL, The Daily Beast, and The New York Times. However, the music and lyrics section of the album article is significantly underdeveloped, and most of the stuff for this song would fit in fine there. The only independently notable thing is the live performance, but it wasn't Britney-VMAs level, so it could reasonably fit in the album article with an additional sentence in the "release and promotion" section. Heartfox ( talk) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
AssumeGoodWraith (
talk |
contribs)
00:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. Splitting the article can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This month is a GoCE drive, and the nominated article was in the copyedit backlog. After completing the asked task in the copyedit template (removing links from section headers), I continued with a general copyedit, as in my prelim copyedit I noticed some readability issues. Part of the way through my copyedit, I realized that the nominated article is mostly a list of regional branches of the third order (most of whom have their own pages), and the two large subsections of the order each have their own pages:
Third Order Regulars and
Secular Franciscan Order. This made me concerned that the nominated article is nothing but a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and a large one at that.
Epikourios Alitheia
talk 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn Mannanan97 suggests a much better pathway for this article to grow.
Epikourios Alitheia
talk
14:02, 18 May 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. North America 1000 12:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. The only relevant sources that come up in a WP:BEFORE search are official US military publications, and even those are largely passing mentions or routine coverage along the lines of "these are the new generals this year". (Note that there is an also a Richard D. King who is a Chief Master Sergeant in the US Air Force, not a Brigadier General.) Apocheir ( talk) 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kazakh Khanate. ✗ plicit 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This article lacks substance, is (I think) machine translation from the Russian wiki, and is pretty much incomprehensible. 'Cleanup' for this article would be a full rewrite; as it is, this article brings nothing to the encyclopedia. — Jthistle38 ( talk) 00:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Another list(icle) of media in which an otherwise notable topic appears in. This is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines ( WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). While mostly referenced and at least not failing WP:V, according to my BEFORE, this probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV. A SOFTDELETE alternative might be redirecting this to Columbine_High_School_massacre#Popular_culture, although that section is not very impressive. Nothing warrants merger, as this entire article is an ORish list of media mentions, without any analysis (i.e. reliable sources saying that depiction of the event in x is actually significant with regards to pop-culture). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While this would appear to be a no consensus by the numbers, the strength of !votes clearly tips this to delete as those have policy on their side. Those arguing this could be solved editorially have not provided policy based reasons to keep it. If someone believes there's significant Malaysian sourcing, I' happy to provide in draft. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
the managing director of a Malaysian aviation startup came on live chat and wanted to know why his company couldn't have an article, when inadequately-sourced articles like this one exist. He's right - I checked, and I don't think this one meets notability criteria. The sources cited are primary. I'm loath to delete it based solely on the complaints of a competitor, though.
Also, the company's been around for 50 years, so maybe I'm just not using the optimal search terms or looking in the right places. DS ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Three closely related interstitial shorts, not a single reliable source among them. As shorts and not full shows in their own right, they are far less likely to have ever received any WP:RS attention. Indeed, they get no relevant hits on Newspapers.com or ProQuest -- just tangential mentions or program directories. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Mike's Super Short Show was
previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Pastor of unclear notability. Article has no secondary sources. His ministry may be notable, but unsure if Kim is notable. Natg 19 ( talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources here are mostly primary sources, even on user-generated platforms, and many do not even mention the Internet Sanctions Project. It does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Internet Sanctions Projecton Google. The Washington Post piece [4] do not mention the project at all. It's just a quote by one of the founders? That poses two problems: 1) notability is not inherited, there may be some info due for the founder page, but that doesn't make this project notable, and 2) WP:ORGCRIT requires
significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that's simply not existent here. MarioGom ( talk) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? MarioGom ( talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to INNOVATE Corp. or a section thereof, should a defunct stations one be created Star Mississippi 02:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct LPTV station. No sources. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't discern whether this is a Keep vote here. Any suggestions on possible redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America 1000 01:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Merge the one or two sentences in the article to Turkic peoples, and then redirect. Mooonswimmer 23:12, 17 May 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 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:ALBUM. Mooonswimmer 23:10, 17 May 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 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable, unproduced comedy Mooonswimmer 23:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted by Cryptic under WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Tartar Torte 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
CSD G11 removed. Article is WP:PROMOTION Whiteguru ( talk) 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 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 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:36, 17 May 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 01:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:30, 17 May 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 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 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 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:23, 17 May 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 01:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 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 01:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is essentially just that his music exists, and the only source being cited is his own self-published profile on the website of his own self-owned record label, which is not a notability-assisting source -- and it's been flagged for the referencing problem since 2014 without ever having any new references added. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on real coverage in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 20:36, 17 May 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 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a band, not
properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are charting #102 on Canada's campus radio charts (a
WP:BADCHART that cannot establish musical notability, as it isn't
IFPI-certified), airplay on
CBC Radio 3 which is unverified as their name appears nowhere at all in the page that's being cited to support it, and a concert tour which is sourced solely by an unreliable blog and the band's own self-published website rather than the
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the tour that's actually required to pass the touring criterion.
This is, further, referenced almost entirely to blogs, university student media, the band's own website and other sources that aren't support for notability; there's just one citation to a real major daily newspaper, and even that's just their hometown newspaper giving them a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person, which means it would be fine for use if the other sourcing were stronger but can't vault them over GNG all by itself.
Essentially, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced a lot better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded without comment. Yet another "List of people on the postage stamps of X" article with zero encyclopedic content or sources. Expanding the list is doing nothing to improve its lack of value, its lack of sources, its lack of anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni ( talk) 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 18:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast. ✗ plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
A list with one item fails WP:NLIST. Gabe114 ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to strongly fail notability guidelines. A quick Google search ("Donald Coggan engineer") yields basically nothing. – Ploni ( talk) 18:44, 17 May 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 01:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet notability criteria, and clearly written by the subject ( User:Bediakoasare4). – Ploni ( talk) 18:24, 17 May 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 01:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. It can be difficult to find reliable sources online about notable Iranian people, but having searched the romanised and Persian spellings of his name online, I can only find that he did release an album, but not whether it had any chart success, news coverage, or won any awards. The one reliable-looking source I could find on him online [12] says that he wanted to buy a notable football club in 2016. Storchy ( talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician and writer, not making any strong or properly referenced claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NAUTHOR. The notability claim here is essentially that his work exists, which isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it in the media, but the referencing is entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or institutions. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in actual GNG-worthy media. Bearcat ( talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to John Salley#Television. ✗ plicit 01:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Zero sourcing found on Newspapers.com/ProQuest. Twinkle somehow failed to notice that this was previously prodded in 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Following "Outrageous" is "I Can't Believe You Said That," a shriek-a-thon game show hosted by former National Basketball Assn. star John Salley in which family members reveal embarrassing things about each other. "Quirky"? "Savvy"? Not unless those words have been radically redefined. The show is utterly bereft of edginess or even a camp quality. I can't believe they programmed that."
The result was Restore disambiguation. which I have done. Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Effectively double with FIFA World Cup qualification and UEFA European Championship qualifying. The Banner talk 17:21, 17 May 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 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There are references here, but per WP:CORP - quantity does not determine significance - the depth of coverage is fairly passing and routine for this small company. The article itself also lacks depth. Uhooep ( talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:41, 25 May 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:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Lacks quality book reviews to support his author claim. Also, the "Critical reception" or "Reception" section are generally used for books, not for authors. Besides that, most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. High probability; the page is a WP:UPE by an WP:SPA . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a radio personality, referenced exclusively to her own staff profile on the
self-published website of her own employer rather than any evidence of third-party
reliable source coverage. As always, broadcasters aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, but must have their work externally validated as significant by third-party sources: notable broadcasting awards, newspaper or magazine articles about her and her career, and on and so forth.
As I don't have access to databases in which I could recover archived British media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to those resources can find enough proper coverage to salvage this -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better sourcing than just her own employer's staff directory.
Note as well that the first discussion ten years ago is not definitive: radio presenters are not automatically notable just because they're on the radio, but rather she has to be a subject of coverage, in sources other than her own employer, in order to establish her significance. But the first discussion hinged entirely on "notable because she exists" rather than on any evidence that she could be brought up to a
WP:GNG-passing standard of sourceability.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There is only one source. This source contains a leaflet(primary source, because it is an exhibit). The commentary is not enough to make an article beyond WP:NOT#DICDEF. The company(Nordex Food) has no article on Wikipedia. Lurking shadow ( talk) 16:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Article which likely fails WP:NACTOR. A child actor who only appeared in one series ( Coronation Street) in a recurring role and has not had any other roles since. There is little, if any, media coverage about him and the article's only source is an archived profile of the character he played on the series' official website with no information on the actor himself. Koljanc ( talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vinh Long Radio Television. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I removed the speedy deletion because I didn't think it met that qualification. However, I believe this article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it doesn't seem to have the proper fit for an article. Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of Kaltariel ( talk · contribs) who prodded the article; as it was previously AFD'd in 2020, it's not eligible for prod. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable businessperson. All coverage appears to either be hyperlocal (inside the DC beltway), niche industry, and run-of-the-mill financial announcements about his various businesses. Paid creation and ongoing paid editing, some of which is likely undisclosed. valereee ( talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yet another unsourced stub on a reality show too short-lived to have garnered attention Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 01:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Heartened by the success it’s found with documentaries about Osama bin Laden and waste in the federal government, CNN is debuting a new weekly investigative series this month to showcase long-form pieces by some of the network’s best-known correspondents. “CNN: Special Investigations Unit,” which will premiere Jan. 20, is the latest initiative at the cable news network, ... The new hourlong series, which will air Saturdays and Sundays at 5 p.m. with a repeat at 8 p.m., will feature work by chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and anchors Anderson Cooper and Soledad O’Brien as well as correspondents like John Roberts, John King and Candy Crowley. ... The first installment of “CNN: Special Investigations Unit” will be “The War Within,” a piece by Amanpour about Muslim extremism in Britain."
The abstract notes: "Using the linguistic method of discourse analysis, we analyze one high profile instance – an episode of CNN’s ‘Special Investigations Unit’, which aired several times in the summer of 2007 – to demonstrate a narrative linking of the high social costs and failures associated with noncompliance and, therefore, the imperative of enforcing it for the safety of society. Through the semiotic reduction of a ‘poetic parallelism’, the episode reflects and reinforces existing cultural models for mental illness, including its status as straightforward biological disease amenable to pharmacological therapy but which remains uncontrolled due to widespread noncompliance."
The article notes: "[former U.N. Ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew] Young was one of many interviewed in the recently aired special, "CNN: Special Investigation Unit, MLK-Words That Changed a Nation." ... In the program, reporter Soledad O'Brien interviewed Young and other colleagues of King including activist Dorothy Cotton, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and King's attorney, Clarence Jones. They divulged intimate information about the decisions that were made and key events of the civil rights movement including the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the arrest of Rosa Parks and King's assassination. The documentary also examines King's life through his library of writings and books housed at Morehouse College, his alma mater. James Polk, executive producer of the program, said Morehouse College and the city of Atlanta were very gracious to grant CNN access to the locked vault full of King's handwritten documents."
The book notes: "To illustrate the problem, we consider a case study involving a recent exclusive report from the CNN Special Investigations Unit by Drew Griffin, Kathleen Johnston and Todd Schwarzschild, titled "Sources: Air Marshals Missing From Almost All Flights". Dated 25 March 2008, and offered both in broadcast and on-line internet formats, the report cites official statistics and anecdotal evidence collected from interviews with both named and anonymous sources about the surprising paucity of armed air marshals accompanying passenger flights in the United States in the wake of terrorist hi-jacked airplane strikes against the World Trace Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on 11 September 2001. Here are some of the report's highlights from the network's website: [quote] This is attention-getting journalism. It touches a nerve for all people who travel by air or have friends and relatives who fly. ... What CNN informs us, and with apparently solid justification, is the startling fact that there are actually very few air marshals aboard US flights."
The article notes: "The episodes will run under the banner CNN: Special Investigations Unit. The series will focus on current pressing issues, and it is designed to complement CNN Presents, ... Special Investigations Unit will include reporters such as Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Soledad O'Brien, medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta and correspondents John Roberts, John King, Candy Crowley, Drew Griffin and others. The first episode, The War Within, will be reported by Amanpour."
The article notes: "With an assist from filmmaker Spike Lee, CNN's Soledad O'Brien took a chance on some amateurs in hopes of getting fresh perspectives on New Orleans' recovery at K+2. Almost all of the footage for "Children of the Storm," a CNN "Special Investigations Unit" documentary airing at 7 p.m. Wednesday, was shot by New Orleans-area teenagers."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) CHILDREN OF THE STORM Earlier this year the “American Morning” anchor Soledad O’Brien and the filmmaker Spike Lee gave 11 teenagers in and around New Orleans video cameras to create diaries as they rebuilt their lives after Hurricane Katrina. Their films are at the heart of this episode of “CNN: Special Investigations Unit,” in which the young people, four of whom are shown above with Ms. O’Brien, center, describe their journeys."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) NARCO STATE In this “CNN: Special Investigations Unit” documentary, Anderson Cooper traces the opium journey from poppy flower to addiction and examines how the drug is pushing Afghanistan into crisis."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT: BATTLEFIELD BREAKDOWN A report by John King on the costs of the Iraq war, in American lives and money, and the battle readiness of the Army’s active units."
The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) THE WAR WITHIN Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent, talks to young people, clerics and Shahid Malik, one of only four Muslim members of the British Parliament, about the cultural conflicts within Muslim communities in Britain and other Western societies, and the influences pushing some toward philosophies of extremism. The documentary inaugurates the network’s new series “CNN: Special Investigations Unit.”"
The article notes: "With one of the world's most extensive news-gathering organizations at its beck and call, CNN's Special Investigations Unit has chosen to commemorate the birthday of the late James Brown by telling the same old story in the same old way. ... There are a few times when the piece surprises. Although they have nothing new to say, some of the famous faces associated with Brown, but rarely heard from, are given some screen time, including former James Brown bass man Bootsy Collins, biographer Bruce Tucker and Usher, who was taken under the wing of the singer."
The article notes: "CNN Special Investigations Unit: Crime & Corruption As New Orleans attempts to recover from Hurricane Katrina, the city has struggled to overcome the culture of corruption that had become endemic to the Big Easy. Correspondent Soledad O’Brien speaks to the city’s first inspector general about his mission to root out mismanagement, and to prosecutors who are trying to curb the violence that hinders the return of residents, tourists, and business investment. Saturday, Aug. 30, at 8 p.m., CNN"
The article notes: "Residents from Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine will be featured in a CNN documentary that gives viewers a behind-the-scenes look at the lives of residents at Atlanta's Grady Memorial Hospital. "CNN: Special Investigations Unit - Grady's Anatomy" which follows the lives of three Emory residents and a Morehouse resident, will air at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. March 24 and 25."
The article notes: "Now a CNN Special Investigations Unit documentary examines the unexpected consequences of this protracted war. On "Battlefield Breakdown," CNN correspondent John King reports that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Army's 42 active brigades are rated unable to perform due to shortages of manpower and equipment, including armored vehicles, lithium batteries, even water. And he reports that, early on, the Pentagon resisted Congressional efforts to add more armored vehicles, perhaps mistakenly believing the war wouldn't last long enough to warrant the investment. "Battlefield Breakdown" premieres Saturday at 8 p.m."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. Appears to fail notability requirements for future films WP:NFF. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable youth team, all substantive sources I found were from US Soccer so it lacks independent coverage. Reywas92 Talk 13:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
PROD Does not meet criteria in
WP:SPORTBASIC. Simply a player.
was declined removing deletion request as has played loads of professional games so meets football player notability
. As we know from the metric ton of sports AfDs, that's no longer a notability criteria and I am unable to identify coverage that would meet GNG requirements. Just some game reports. Note when searching, it does not appear the sports exec is the same Drew Russsell. With appearances for multiple teams, there isn't a clear AtD target either.
Star
Mississippi
13:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics with the history underneath it, should someone find access to book sources with which to flesh this out. Star Mississippi 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Kądziołka not only did not win a medal (as part of a team) in the Olympics, his team did not even finish the competition they were in. So that really is not at all a sign of notability. It is also not a good sing when he is Polish, but the Polish Wikipedia article has one source, the same in English sports reference source used here. Olympedia has an entry with no text just sports tables. A search in google books came up with this name, but it was about a person born about 1920 who was being mentioned because as a schoolboy he was friends with someone who became an international leader. So this is not a good redirect target because most extant sourcing is about a totally different person who just happened to have the same name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: He was obviously a national athlete. The fact there are few digital references to him yet, doesn’t mean there aren’t many published written ones. Wikipedia is want to forget that Books still exist. If the project had deleted every unreferenced stub in its early days, half the best pages would never have been written. Who knows how this page may be expanded in the future - give it a chance. Giano (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Lacks independent sources, so she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Misleading; written in present tense, cites references from 2001 ie before the revolution. Actions in "eastern Ukraine" may be committed by Russian or Russian-backed troops Elinruby ( talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Adding: topic itself may possibly notable but this article does not support that. Elinruby ( talk) 12:01, 17 May 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. I concur with Joe Roe, but no one is contesting the deletion after another week. Star Mississippi 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I came across the page Linde Nijland as I was originally going to propose merging the page Ygdrassil (musical group) into it. However, I cannot find significant coverage for Nijland or her musical duo to satisfy the criteria at WP:NMUSIC, so I'm proposing that both be deleted. There's simply no media coverage, no reviews, no chart success, no releases on major record labels. The options are
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technically eligible for
soft deletion, but I don't want to delete two pages under that procedure, especially when the nominator is unclear about whether they actually favour deletion. Please note that the
language of coverage has no bearing on notability here on the English Wikipedia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk)
11:39, 17 May 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. I understand the redirect was challenged (courtesy @ Liz:) so I won't restore it, but rather treating this as an expired PROD as there is no one challenging the nomination based on information that currently exists. Star Mississippi 02:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
there is not enough material to justify a standalone page; probably because the subject is not notable. no sources other than some collections of estimates and vague numbers from sources that aggregate these statistics were found on a WP:BEFORE search. an attempt to redirect it to Religion in Bhutan was reverted. TryKid dubious – discuss 05:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. For some reason stops in 1969, and despite the claim of being complete until then, it misses e.g. Pierre and Marie Curie (1938) and Churchill, Lincoln and Kennedy (1965). Not improved since 2010, and was viewed by 9 people in the last 90 days, so not a topic of interest for our readers either. Fram ( talk) 10:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. whether or not lists of planets exist,there is consensus against this one. Star Mississippi 02:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea at all what the actual purpose of this article is. A municipality of less than 10,000 inhabitants has a number of official documents available for inhabitants, just like most other communities in the world. Why it would be a good idea to have an article that informs us that Santa Margherita Ligure has an "Application for household allowance 2022", a "Request form 1 hour in Blue zone for residents only" or a "Specification for home composting" is unclear. If you need a formal reason, total lack of notability. Fram ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I see concerns over the purpose of an article like this however I firmly believe that wikipedia articles warrant more detail and with both Santa Margherita Ligure and Contern I’m attempting to sort of set an example if you will. Of the absolute maximum which isn’t excessive. I also am quite certain that this isn’t excessive as there are many communes which have various documents but Santa Margherita Ligure has a lot more than anywhere else ive seen and also has far more variety. Additionally the town is more than a town of 100000 it has a rich history, intricate and sceneic geography, a large tourism industry and is famous amongst many parts of italy unlike most other towns of 10000. Therefore it warrants more détail generally which I feel includes the list of documents. I would make it a part of the main article but there is simple too many of them. This is a necessary step in the expansion of the article of the original town. Also due to the intricate geography and large ammounts of tourism in the town. Most documents are more notable as they often refer to road closures, beach closure and what can affect a larger number of people. Finally Wikipedia is no stranger to lists like this, I’m trying to take a step to make wikipedia more detailed when it comes to municipalities and towns. Sure it might be the tinyest bit excessive but Wikipedia changes and also the larger this article is, the more people will be detered into expanding other articles on the site N1TH Music ( talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability and abandoned article. Sakiv ( talk) 09:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable VP of a Bangladeshi University. All references are primary. Article does not meet WP:NBIO Whiteguru ( talk) 08:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mythdon (
talk •
contribs)
09:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This seems like a totally unreferenced fork of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in popular culture. The argument I used there applies here in its entirety: "Arguably, a very interesting topic. Possibly notable (ex. the existence of works like [27]), but not in this WP:TNTable form of a completely unreferenced TVtropic listcruft aka List of all media that mention the topic of war (the lead even admits the goal: "The following is a list of pop culture references to war."). Like all similar articles (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture), it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. That's what TV Tropes is for, folks. Or https://military-history.fandom.com". I'll also ping editors who commended so far at that other AfD: @ Reywas92, Rorshacma, Daranios, Johnpacklambert, TenPoundHammer, and Kierzek: @ Zxcvbnm, Azuredivay, Intothatdarkness, Georgethedragonslayer, Shooterwalker, and Jclemens: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is clear at this point, after extended time for discussion, and there is no reason to anticipate that relisting will yield a substantially different result. This close in no way forecloses proposals to merge other content into this material, or to merge this article elsewhere.
BD2412
T
05:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
PRODded by Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs) on concerns that this is largely WP:DICDEF-level material and WP:OR, and fails WP:GNG. I have reason to believe that this is the case, but it was deprodded by Lurking shadow ( talk · contribs), who asserted, without further justification, This isn't PROD material. Some content is also about specific products, failing WP:IINFO. Note that some sources also spell it spin up or spinup.
The first source is a manual for a Western Digital product that mentions spin-up only in passing. The second is effectively an informative advertisement from Fujitsu, and is not WP:RS.
Power-up in standby was proposed for merger in September 2014 by Petr Matas ( talk · contribs), but no merge discussion was opened and the tag was removed in July 2017 by Klbrain ( talk · contribs). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
are just two sources I found here. Lurking shadow ( talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
09:26, 18 May 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 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, nor could I find WP:RS mentioning either the series or any of its games. Appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Rejected at AFC but moved here by creator, so here we are with a non notable topic. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:43, 17 May 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 14:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage, just trivial mentions 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. While we have a language issue and a BLP, consensus is sufficient sources exist. Star Mississippi 02:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This individual doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. No Olympic medals, only competed in one particular Games in 1980. Feels like doesn't meet GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
06:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 06:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:59, 17 May 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 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. This ( 1) is the best I could find. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 05:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The article appears to have been created solely for promotional purposes and have very few reliable sources to back the statements made in the article, and from my personal research, not a lot are available.
Per WP:NBAND, the band has had no charting singles or albums, has never been signed to a major label, and also appears to no longer be active, so it's likely that no notability will be established over time. Magatta ( talk) 17:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
i can't find anything in depth about any iteration of this company - it all appears to be average business announcements/acquisitions/parroted press releases and as it stands now, our entire article is basically just a press release as well. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
PRODded by Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs), who noted the lack of sources that claime dthat it fails WP:GNG. Deproded by Spinningspark ( talk · contribs), who claimed (without improving the article) that this is definitely a thing seen in numerous martial arts films and provided an external link about the technique. However, neither the source the deprodder provided nor the existing external link in the article seem to be RS, and my search engine results offer no further sources about the technique under this name.
The disambiguation page Spin up (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the base title, even if this article is kept, since there is no primary topic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:32, 17 May 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 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
WP: ORG, looks to be closed now Happyecheveria ( talk) 03:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Here TV#Programming as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 02:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable podcast. Current sources barely mention it. Only lasted six episodes. Tagged for notability and sources. Prod contested in September. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"Like catty chat? Dig well-matched duos? Love Ryan and Simon's banter on Idol, but just wish it was rues macho? You're in luck". The solo paragraph in the Blade means the Gazette
The article notes: "If you were watching two well-groomed hosts on here! TV talking about closeted celebrities and CorbinFisher.com, you’d assume they were gay, right? Yes, ben harvey and dave Rubin of The Ben and Dave Show are indeed queer. But the cute two-some (who have an easy, almost brotherly on-air rapport) give a new definition to “straight-acting.” Give your gaydar a workout when the show premieres on Friday, March 14."
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. The references all appear to be paid puff pieces, and he still hasn't had a major role in a notable film or video since the last AFD in September 2021. I don't see any significant coverage of him online in reliable sources since then, just some more puff pieces for a lead role in a science fiction show which doesn't seem to have materialised yet. Storchy ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:30, 17 May 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. ✗ plicit 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Listcruft. This is the main page for a list of players who have played in a semi-professional basketball league in the Philippines, most of whom are redlinked. No sourcing, and I assume verifiability is going to be a nightmare......and that's assuming that a list of players who played in a sports league is inherently notable, which it isn't.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the branches which actually contain the contents of the list which is being discussed:
fuzzy510 ( talk) 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. this could be closed as no consensus, but really we don't even have a strong nomination nor !vote to delete, since both were countered by the sources provided. Merger is a viable AtD and it makes sense to cover an event within the organizer's article when there isn't a size issue. Star Mississippi 01:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There may be two official websites (including one from Australia) and a Flickr page. But other than that, there seems to be no reliable sources for this event. Pahiy ( talk) 03:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe the article meet the WP:N criteria, due to the significant coverage from Bulgarian media about the driver. I would add more sources if needed, but I believe the current ones were enough to cover the article. Chris Calvin ( talk) 10:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chris Calvin ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Single-sentence article about the one-off use of the term mana in discourse about Anglo-Saxon kingship. The entire content of the article is:
The word Mana has occasionally been used to describe the concept of life force [1] or charisma, [2] in Anglo-Saxon culture.
References
- ^ Bates, Brian (2003). The Real Middle Earth: Magic and Mystery in the Dark Ages. Pan Books. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4039-6319-2.
- ^ Chaney, William A. (1970). The cult of kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: the transition from paganism to Christianity. Manchester University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN 978-0-7190-0372-1.
For a more detailed rationale, see the talk page posts reproduced below:
Proposed Deletion
This article is factually incorrect from the start and has no way of being edited into a better form. The earliest reference from William Chaney does not support what the article asserts: that such a term as mana exists. It simply does not in Old English, nor is it used in discourse today. Chaney's book uses mana as it exists in Austronesian languages and nothing more. The more recent citation of Brian Bates is guilty of original research and is not reliable. ( A review from May 2014 shows some such issues.) Attempting to verify further, the word is not found in Bosworth-Toller ( a search brings up unrelated things), nor does it come up in Grimm, Pollington, or even Germanic neopaganism sources. Additionally, the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England made it so that Wodan did not matter as a god proper, but rather he was euhemerised for the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. Anything before Christianisation is poorly documented and belongs to prehistory. The example is thus flawed. Yugure ( talk) 06:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- merge with Mana
As the above discussion indicates, this article appears to be based on a confusion created by the use of the Polynesian word mana in anthropology as a generic term for social power, charisma etc. This usage of the word is already described in Mana#The_academic_study_of_mana. There certainly does not need to be an entire article describing its application to a single culture. I therefore propose that this article be merged into the section Mana#The_academic_study_of_mana. -- 109.159.56.105 ( talk) 05:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The page had previously been redirected, but there's agreement that the redirect is not suitable ( RfD). – Uanfala ( talk) 11:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Not notable per WP:NBOOK and a lack of significant coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
*Delete - insufficient coverage to meet the relevant notability guideline. Only one article and not of significance.
Such-change47 (
talk)
11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
"A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the criteria"- so yes will it might have one an award (one of the criteria) it still must meet WP:GNG as winning an award is only an indicator not definer of notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
They've done a lot, but nothing that seems to pass WP:BAND. Current sources are all promotional or primary. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:56, 17 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
After pruning the poorly or unsourced information in this article, we're not left with much. I can't find any coverage of Swift/Cook under either name that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. There's no meaningful reviews of his books from any of the typical reliable sources and no coverage of his other works or him as an actor or competitor in a netflix show. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The Previous AfD several years ago closed to no consensus, but I think the main systemic problem remains. This runs afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG, focused on comparing Apple's entire lineup in a way sources don't (do sources exist talking about "which iPhone I should get"? Absolutely. Do they either do it with this level of detail? I don't see the source-based evidence for that.) The listings also include stuff like pricing info that absolutely make it read as sales rather than encyclopedia. This is also information that's also unnecessarily duplicated from individual lines, where the comparisons make much more sense; to quote Czar in the previous AfD, "The difference between each refresh of a product fits within the scope of each product's individual article." That basically nothing is directly and clearly cited is the cherry on top. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)The result was keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Further discussion about whether the page would be better as a disambiguation page or redirect can continue at the appropriate venue. Mojo Hand ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Principal council is a term seemingly no longer commonly used in England ( at least by the UK Government), but is in Wales by the Welsh Government. The very short article itself simply defines the term by reference to legislation, but the relevant information about principal councils is instead included in the local government articles for England and Wales. Therefore, I think it best deleted. FollowTheTortoise ( talk) 18:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
01:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article is still of stubby quality and with questionable sources, but consensus appears to be that the sources presently in the article suffice for it to be kept.
BD2412
T
05:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be sourced almost exclusively from YouTube and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES without establishing any external and independent coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of source quality would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi ( talk) 13:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I created this many years ago but I don't think he passes WP:NMUSIC despite one charted hit. He's been featured on a few tracks, but his only solo release charted very very low. The current sources are all 404 except for one news article that barely says anything about him. World Radio History, which archives music magazines from the era, revealed nothing but false positives and directories. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:28, 17 May 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 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Article contains 20 cites but 12 aren't about the organization and don't mention it at all, 6 mention it in passing only, and the remaining 2 cites (#4 and #5) though they do mention the organization up to 3 times, they are not articles about the organization per se (its history, directors, accomplishments, headquarters with actual physical address, etc.) but simply that the organization was involved in some advocacy activity. WP:OR is very clear, at WP:PSTS, that article notability is to be established by secondary sources and this article contains not a single secondary source. It also states articles may contain tertiary sources; this article contains none. Finally, all 20 sources in this article are all primary sources (newspapers) which are not sufficient in and of themselves to establish notability -- especially when only one of the (WAPA-TV) can be considered mainstream (required by WP:PSTS). In addition, the article's Talk Page has, for over 1-1/2 years, questioned its notability, but no actions were taken by the articles editors to attend to it in any manner that would had provided the secondary sources required. Finally, the article also had a warning tag on it, also for well over a year, questioning its notability but, again, no one has been able to prove its notability. For these reasons the article should be deleted. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Found one review but nothign else. Just a bunch of PR fluff. Prod contested without valid comment Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bicester#Schools content is under the redirect if consensus develops for a merge Star Mississippi 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL - lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider whether a redirect or a merge to a different target page would be best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
AssumeGoodWraith (
talk |
contribs)
00:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Weak delete. I believe there is enough material for reasonably detailed background, lyrics, critical reception, commercial performance, and live performance sections. Some material in sources not cited in the article include XXL, The Daily Beast, and The New York Times. However, the music and lyrics section of the album article is significantly underdeveloped, and most of the stuff for this song would fit in fine there. The only independently notable thing is the live performance, but it wasn't Britney-VMAs level, so it could reasonably fit in the album article with an additional sentence in the "release and promotion" section. Heartfox ( talk) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
AssumeGoodWraith (
talk |
contribs)
00:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. Splitting the article can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This month is a GoCE drive, and the nominated article was in the copyedit backlog. After completing the asked task in the copyedit template (removing links from section headers), I continued with a general copyedit, as in my prelim copyedit I noticed some readability issues. Part of the way through my copyedit, I realized that the nominated article is mostly a list of regional branches of the third order (most of whom have their own pages), and the two large subsections of the order each have their own pages:
Third Order Regulars and
Secular Franciscan Order. This made me concerned that the nominated article is nothing but a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and a large one at that.
Epikourios Alitheia
talk 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn Mannanan97 suggests a much better pathway for this article to grow.
Epikourios Alitheia
talk
14:02, 18 May 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. North America 1000 12:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. The only relevant sources that come up in a WP:BEFORE search are official US military publications, and even those are largely passing mentions or routine coverage along the lines of "these are the new generals this year". (Note that there is an also a Richard D. King who is a Chief Master Sergeant in the US Air Force, not a Brigadier General.) Apocheir ( talk) 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kazakh Khanate. ✗ plicit 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This article lacks substance, is (I think) machine translation from the Russian wiki, and is pretty much incomprehensible. 'Cleanup' for this article would be a full rewrite; as it is, this article brings nothing to the encyclopedia. — Jthistle38 ( talk) 00:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)