The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Promotional and fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:55, 30 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 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Has a few writing credits to his name, but sourcing is nonexistant. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Potentially notable. scope_creep Talk 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage anywhere. Srijanx22 ( talk) 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:48, 30 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 13:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable. Refs are blogs. No real coverage. scope_creep Talk 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails ncorp. Native advertising. scope_creep Talk 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GCSE Science. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:SYNTH and possible WP:OR of various sources unrelated to the topic. I do not see in a sampling of the sources any actual mention of the purported subject. It's also heavy on Primary documents and citations such as nature are to listing of articles on nature.com Slywriter ( talk) 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
non-notable band, no significant coverage, no major reviews PRAXIDICAE💕 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Studio audience. ✗ plicit 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Lacks sufficient references. At best, redirect to Audience response or one of the other wikilinked articles mentioned. Geoff | Who, me? 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Greg Giraldo. ✗ plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. Delete or redirect to the comedian's article, Greg Giraldo. Geoff | Who, me? 22:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Larry Wright (cartoonist). With four people calling to merge in <24 hours, I see no reason to oppose this. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Defunct comic strip with very little coverage. I created this stub back in 2009 and it has not changed one iota since. Sources are an encyclopedia, 404, and a primary source that's now dead. Deprodded because "it warrants coverage" Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
a strip that lasted for 25 years warrants coverage. I stand by that view. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. However, a person with the same name [4] appears on the Coral Sun Airways page as the founder. Don't think this is the same person however. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability; 10th place finish on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 ( talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers. ATD. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 04:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Survivor: Ghost Island#Contestants. ✗ plicit 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability; 13th place finish on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 ( talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient, especially for a BLP Star Mississippi 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Fully recognizing that others may not use the same measurement, though, I stand by the recommendation that if not kept, a merge to Tuvalu national football team be considered as the alternative given his high standing with the team and the fact that there is some coverage out there in the first place, which is much more than some of his teammates. - 2pou ( talk) 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"or whatever it's supposed to be"comes off quite rude. You can clearly see that this is a person by taking a look at the article. - 2pou ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. there is no independent sourcing that backs up the claims to notability, so nothing to merge. Star Mississippi 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tuvalu national football team. Consensus is clear that coverage isn't at GNG level, but this is a valid ATD. Content is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 14:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep The second reference is very obviously not just a trivial mention, so the rationale for this nomination is invalid. 172.58.110.253 ( talk) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
two (at best) simply would not meet WP:GNG, we will just not see eye to eye there (though your borderline comment has talked me back in this case). GNG has always been an intentionally low bar to meet, and my personal inclination is anything that has two sources of at least WP:100W (essay, I know, but it's something to measure "significant" with) will meet GNG as two is multiple. As I said, that's just me, though. All the best, 2pou ( talk) 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In this instance some claims to coverage significant and widespread enough to satisfy gng. Needs further discussion to create a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
22:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
AD.nl article (I tracked down the actual link) | There are exactly 3 non-quote sentences in this article, zero of them specifically on Vaisua Liva (as opposed to the pair of him and Alopua) | ✘ No | ||
TNFA | The player's own football association is obviously not independent | ? No point checking since the source is not independent | ✘ No | |
Oceania Football Confederation link #1 (access denied) | OFC is ofc not independent of its members | ? | ✘ No | |
Oceania Football Confederation link #2 (access denied) | ? | ✘ No | ||
Oceania Football Confederation link #3 (access denied) | ? | ✘ No | ||
Oceania Football Confederation link #4 (access denied) | ✘ No | |||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
JoelleJay ( talk) 04:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't find any sources about this individual. There's a chance they're out there, given his art seems to have been primarily published pre-1980, but I couldn't find anything. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't find any sources. Prod contested on talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
*Delete per nom. Found nothing to support notability.
DonaldD23
talk to me
04:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The article provides 113 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "His bark is worse Ten Deadliest Snakes (Eden, 3pm/9pm) Without a hint of sheepishness, Nigel Marven concedes in turn that (a) these are only the 10 deadliest snakes in Costa Rica, and (b) at least half of them aren't deadly at all, although they might give you a nasty nip. The fact that the list is restricted to one Central American country explains the absence of usual suspects such as cobras, mambas and taipans, with the rare, lengthy bushmaster taking the top place in a line-up dominated by varieties of viper. When not snake-spotting, Marven visits a lab that conducts research on them and hears how horses are used to produce antivenom."
The article provides 118 words of coverage about the subject. The article note: "Nigel Marven counts down his list of the Top 10 deadliest snakes in four parts of the world. From the rice paddies of India to the jungles of Malaysia, from the heat of the Australian Outback to the green fields of the English countryside, he uncovers incredible serpents and a host of other animals. In Malaysia he meets worshippers and vipers at Penang's famous snake temple and takes a boat trip through the mangrove swamps of Langkawi. In India thousands of people are killed by snake bites every year. In Australia, he encounters the most toxic serpent in the world, and in Europe his journey takes him from the ancient ruins of Turkey to the mountains of Spain."
The article provides 89 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "For the first of serpent expert Nigel Marven's new series, he heads to Costa Rica, which has a larger range of deadly snakes than seems strictly fair. Thankfully, the Costa Rican anti-venom business appears to be going great guns. Almost as gung-ho with his handling of such creatures as the late Steve Irwin – one has to presume he knows what he's doing – he grabs hold of any snake he sees with a zesty enthusiasm, including the terciopelo pit viper, which is responsible for half the bites in the country."
The article provides 73 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Maybe I'm alone in this, but I can't help thinking that making a job out of chasing venomous snakes all over the world is a way of asking for trouble. But Nigel Marven doesn't agree, and htis show will highlight the 10 deadliest snakes in the world from locations such aas Australia, which is home to the most venemous snake, and India, where thousands of people apparently die from snake bits every year."
The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "According to The Sunday Mail, the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (Barb) showed that fewer people tuned in to Mr Salmond’s debut show than watched Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven, on the Eden channel."
The article provides 75 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "UKTV’s natural history channel Eden has pre-bought Ten Deadliest Snakes, a three-part wildlife series hosted by Nigel Marven. The upcoming series will follow the presenter as he Marven travels to America, South Africa and Costa Rica, to count down his list of each nation’s ten deadliest snakes."
The article provides 51 words of coverage. The article note: "Underrated natural historian Nigel Marven is back with an entire new series screened back-to-back in one evening, ..."
The article notes: "He'll be educating people of all ages about serpents when his new series, Ten Deadliest Snakes With Nigel Marven, begins. As part of the series, he visits reptile-rich countries like America, South Africa and Costa Rica. ... Ten Deadliest Snakes starts on Eden on Thursday, June 19"
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability and reads like an advertisement/cv. I came across this page after finding spam advertisements in social media comment sections that point people towards a WhatsApp number they can call for advice, and I am worried that this page is being used in order to legitimise a potential scam. Jāzeps ( talk) 20:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete per G7. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced and not notable Artem.G ( talk) 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Entertainment Studios#Talk and magazine series. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Very few sources found. Prod contested as it's been prodded before, which Twinkle somehow failed to notice Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks Notability Zaynab1418 ( talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable person. There are no in-line citations. In two of the books I checked given as references she is not mentioned at all. The notability of her father or son does not carry over to her. Searching for sources in English and Persian only brings up things about Bibi Khanum Astarbadi and Bibi Khanum mosque. I am not sure this is her given name vs it being a nickname/honorific as she has no given surname ("Lady Bibi"). The only information that comes up about her is copied from this Wikipedia page. -- Zaynab1418 ( talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
*Keep there are several offline sources in the further reading section. Unless someone has checked them out and is satisfied that they don’t amount to in depth coverage, we should not delete.
Mccapra (
talk)
01:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Can't find much on a BEFORE. Seems like a non-notable iOS game. Previous AfD only picked up twk suitable refs. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep, according to participants except the nominator, this subject is considered notable by its coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Seasonal monthly event that has only local coverage. Does not appear to be notable. Paid creation. valereee ( talk) 17:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST. The TV Guide review is a dead link. The Film Creator ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Taku Kitazaki. ✗ plicit 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. I tried to improve the article some time ago, but all I could find were primary sources and no useful secondary sources. - Xexerss ( talk) 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
17:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ikki Kajiwara. ✗ plicit 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The article only has one source and there is no evidence of notability. - Xexerss ( talk) 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
17:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Inadequate sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. A search does not reveal any meaningful coverage other than WP:PLOT summaries which are WP:NOT sufficient for an encyclopedic article. Jontesta ( talk) 16:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there are several somewhat weak arguments for keeping the article, but a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and some reasonable grounds to expect that additional work can be done to improve the article. There is no reason to expect that further extending discussion here will yield further clarity.
BD2412
T
06:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
aside from the TNIE review, there is nothing else significant in terms of sources about the author or the book. Du Beat is a student paper and is pretty insignificant, Zee News doesn't even have a byline and the rest are utterly unreliable. Also worth noting this book was included along with a few sources in the AFD'd Harsh Agarwal, which was also found to be non-notable PRAXIDICAE💕 21:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This excludes ... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties ... speak about the book. What is an interview if not that?A blog article republished in a publication of unknown reliability in a "lounge" back page isn't reliable by any measure. There is nothing to suggest the author is a journalist. Hemantha ( talk) 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works. The things that appear in "leisure" sections of much more reputed papers sometimes aren't credible; it takes much more than a simple statement to show why the "Metro Lounge" page is. Hemantha ( talk) 13:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
16:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Spawn (character). Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
A search did not reveal any significant coverage as defined in the WP:GNG, which is needed to create a WP:VERIFIABLE article that is WP:NOT just an editor's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Article does not meet most of our key policies and guidelines. Jontesta ( talk) 16:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Fails notability WP:GNG. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL. Most coverage is routine mentions of his unsuccessful candidacy. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
A search revealed no meaningful coverage to support this article, as required by the WP:GNG. Article is entirely WP:OR, with scant sources that do not meet Wikipedia's minimums. Jontesta ( talk) 16:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of collectible card games. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded with suggestion to merge, but the article is too short and unsourced for any content to be worth merging. This does not seem to be a notable game, as I was unable to find sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Previous AFD in 2020 closed as "no consensus". Only source is a review of Godspell where he is mentioned in passing. Most of his roles are "additional voices" or background characters, with a short-lived game show being his only major recurring role. I created this article a billion years ago with hopes of growing it, but it just never happened. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This guy did one relatively minor thing once. This obviously doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gtag10 ( talk) 15:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a rail spot that failed to disappear from the topos when the rail line did. No signs of a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 15:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
As a programming block and not a show in its own right, I was only able to verify that it exists. Every hit on ProQuest was either a TV Guide listing or a passing mention in the form of "ABC is going to show ____ on ABC Monday Night Movie tonight". No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country, even if it were true; is entirely irrelevant to the question here, which is "does this topic meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia"? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia started in 2001. The embryo of Lists of People on Postage Stamps (LPPS) started in 2002 and has been added to sporadically over the last 20 years. Philately is a hobby so updates occurred once in a while as collectors chose to enhance the data. I chose to update Central and South America in 2013 and was doing the same in 2022. I followed the format and content developed over 20 years. I believed that it had been vetted and approved before I started my updates. Hundreds of volunteers have dedicated thousands of hours to creating and maintaining these lists. Obviously there is no point in continuing.
For some reason, this particular set of lists (LPPS) seems to have galled users Fram, Johnpacklambert, and TenPoundHammer to the point where they have initiated a complete purge of the list tree. One of them actually referred to the lists as "philatelykruft". (I assume "kruft" is Newspeak for Bovine Fecal Matter). There was no round table discussion on how to improve the articles. There was no call for volunteers to work on changes or improvements. There was no effort to make the list more "notable" (a highly vague concept). Instead a major purge has been started. Further discussion is meaningless in AfDs since the purge effort is in full swing.
Thank you to all of the stamp collectors who built the lists over the years (although you may never see my thanks!!!). I had enough notice that I was able to take copies of many of the files for my personal use. I am saddened that so much effort is being destroyed. Good bye Bill Blampied ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. This is barely a list, as it only contains nine people, not a single one of whom is sourced. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Standard "list of people on the postage stamps of X" list. This is woefully incomplete, and while sources are added, there is still no proof of meeting WP:SALAT. The sources given prove that these people were on the stamp, but not that it's a topic worthy of attention. And since when are "gubernatorial election" and "Puerto Rican flag" people? Obligatory ping of @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Delete rationales seem stronger here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yet another boilerplate "List of people on the postage stamps of X" marathon. The lists are entirely unsourced and unmaintained. There is no evidence that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT, and the consensus to delete such lists is overwhelming. All of these were deprodded with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again -- just because you can corroborate all of these through a stamp catalog doesn't mean it's a noteworthy list on its own. Obligatory ping of @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject is non-notable, article largely written by paid editors. WP:BEFORE reveals a single relevant source: a two-page discussion in an obscure textbook. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. During the Azovstal siege, a number of fighters' photos were published in international media because the facility was not accessible to the press. This does not give them notability in my view. The two main WP:RSs are the Euronews article and the Guardian article. In the latter, he is literally mentioned only for a photo credit, ergo not WP:SIGCOV. In the former, the main subject are the photos by him – it's not, in any meaningful sense, an article about him or even his photography but a way to show the photos, I therefore would not consider it coverage of him. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Renomination at a time when there's more input might be a help, but no indication a 3rd week now will Star Mississippi 18:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability. No coverage at all other than listings and listing type reviews on some database type websites. Film was never really released. Article has been recreated about 6 times, including after an AFD. Possibly should be salted. North8000 ( talk) 13:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 03:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Unreferenced, and fails notability criteria for academics. – Ploni ( talk) 11:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted (Block evasion, no legitimate sources that mention subject's name). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Repeatedly recreated under Birmal Hembram, which has been salted a month ago, but I cannot see what's behind the deleted versions. I will note that the first source does not mention the person at all. If kept, the original article should be unsalted and this article moved back to its original location without the period at the end. -- MuZemike 13:59, 30 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 14:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as an early settler of an individual midsized city. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and requires him to get over
WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but the only references present here at all are genealogical documents on FamilySearch or Find-a-Grave used solely to support his birth and death dates, which are not notability-supporting sources, and the article has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues since 2016 without ever having any new sources added to boost his notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be a subject of actual media coverage about him.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a radio personality and former tennis player, not
reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for broadcasters or tennis players. When it comes to radio, the notability claim is that her show exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- but the radio content is referenced entirely to her own employers rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in third-party sources. And when it comes to tennis, there's a claim here that might possibly satisfy
WP:NTENNIS (I'm admittedly not knowledgeable enough about tennis to know if it does or not) if it were sourced properly, but is still cited exclusively to deadlinked
primary source directories rather than any evidence of GNG-worthy media coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from actually having to have any reliable source coverage in real media. Even if a person has a plausible potential notability claim, they still have to have reliable source coverage to support it.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Insignificant village, fails WP:GEOLAND#2. I suggest to rewrite as redirect to the municipality of Samopše, which includes this village. FromCzech ( talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced biography of a non-notable living person. DrKay ( talk) 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
A surprisingly long-lived vanity article for a writer (and television executive?) whose main claim to fame seems to be obscure self-published works (see for instance Hollywood under the Covers, published by " Vegas Revolutions, LLC", a defunct company headed by none other than... Brandie Knight, or, amusingly, Self-Publish Like a Pro), and a tangential link to Tommy Chong.
All the existing references belong to blogs and recondite trade publications or fall under WP:PRSOURCE, and the claims of working on various Hollywood projects are totally unsourced. She has received no independent coverage and fails WP:AUTHOR by every possible metric. MasqueDesRonces ( talk) 11:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails notability guidelines for biographies. I cant find any sources about this person on google search. BloatedBun ( talk) 11:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as none of the brigades are notable on their own. This is just a collection of outdated website links. Since its nomination in 2015 it has essentially been expanded to include a whole heap of poorly sourced fancruft involving numbers of types of appliances and firefighting equipment in each. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be an agreement on whether this article should be improved, or deleted. Several !votes on both the "keep" and "delete" sides are somewhat lacking, and discussion is getting heated, with some name calling going on, so I am going to nip this in the bud now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced since 2003, abandoned since 2010, incomplete even for the years supposedly covered (e.g. 1937, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother). Fram ( talk) 08:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced, very short list, which isn't even complete for the years it covers (e.g. Churchill 1966 or Princess Anne 1973 are missing). With 18 pageviews in the last 90 days, again one of these lists with no interest from either editors or readers. Fram ( talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced (one source doesn't work and doesn't seem like a reliable source anyway), incomplete (e.g. has a stamp from 2001, but misses the Elias Abu Chabake stamp from the same year), and unloved (26 pageviews over the last 90 days). Fram ( talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Even the 1960s part, which looks filled, is very incomplete (e.g. the long series of Mexico 68 gold medal winners is lacking, and the many people on airmail stamps from the period). Largely abandoned since its creation in 2007, except some minor additions in 2013. Not of interest to our readers either, judging from the pageviews. Fram ( talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Very incomplete, abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2004, and mostly unread (some 30 pageviews in the last 90 days before the Proposed deletion). Fram ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Incomplete (no idea which years it supposedly covers, but e.g. 1980 stamps are missing), abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2015, and unread (18 pageviews in the last 90 days). Fram ( talk) 08:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. but there is no clear consensus to SALT. That can be re-visited if folks find merit. @ PixelMonki: please respect consensus, or you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
First PRODed and then, about a year ago, deleted in a first AfD for failing WP:GNG and the same reasoning still stands. A recent stunt has received some coverage and seen the page re-created. Note high SPA/IP editing. I considered just reverting to the previous redirect, but a new discussion is perhaps in order. If we decide to re-delete, WP:SALTing is recommended given the edit warring the article has seen over the previous redirect. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
enduring notability. I'm not certain Indian Express meets WP:RS. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.0x Deadbeef 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT, and I don't think it's been demonstrated he meets either of them. He was also not elected mayor, so he doesn't meet WP:NPOL. In my nomination statement for the last AfD, I said that the RS material being put forward comprised
routine election coverage and coverage of his YouTube hijinks, rather than coverage of Fosh himself. This remains the case for new material being put forward as potentially establishing notability, so I think the same problem applies. I don't think anything meaningful has changed, except the repeated SPA recreations which I think justify SALTing, which was something advocated by several contributors in the initial discussion last year too. Ralbegen ( talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
enduring notability. His viewer base doesn't seem large enough by WP:NYOUTUBE standards (see the table at the bottom). Bondegezou ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 20:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Most of the sources are interviews or her articles/books. Nothing substantial to satisfy the general notability guidelines Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 06:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 04:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Search fails GNG, no results in books, news yields two minor travel sites. Additionally, this was created for money. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator Firestar464 ( talk) 09:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
A quick search does not seem to indicate WP:GNG. Additionally, this was created for money. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite improvements, I don't see an agreement that the article should be kept. ClaudineChionh if you want the article moved to user / draft space for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Recreation of a previously expired/deleted PRODded article. New version was created by a serial unreferenced article creator who doesn't respond to talk page messages. My prod was something like: Serves as a directory listing for a directory. I'm not seeing reliable secondary significant coverage elsewhere; brief mentions on Google Scholar and elsewhere. Further details: I prodded this one w/o realizing that it had been prodded/deleted previously. I don't recall whether I prodded the previous one (I suspect not) and I don't know whether the creator of this unsourced article created the previous one. I completed a BEFORE but didn't find anything in the significant-secondary-reliable happy place. The person who deprodded this time did it on the technicality of its having been recreated; that person noted that notability is not demonstrated; someone else removed all unsourced content. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine consensus as to whether the improvements are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. per changing circumstances during the discussion. This could be called n/c, but a full reading of the discussion shifts the weight to the Keep !voters Star Mississippi 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Unneeded, unsourced, and misleading list that lists entries like "male" alongside numerous neologisms with zero presence in reliable sources.
There is no need for this list. Noteworthy non-binary genders are already listed at that article. Other notable terms about gender are linked in articles on gender and transgender topics and in navboxes and sidebars.
This article was WP:PRODed and endorsed by Mean as custard and TenPoundHammer, but this was removed by Kvng, pointing to the WP:DEMOLISH essay. As that is an essay, I'd rather point to WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE. Listing every neologism ever thought up for "my gender identity feels unstable" or [object]gender is an undue treatment of gender. It does not matter if the list is ever completed, it is fundamentally misguided and unneeded, with the topic being covered much better by existing articles. Crossroads -talk- 01:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sourcesand the existence of this list could serve a navigational purpose with the inclusion of related articles. Based on available sources, this topic appears to be too broad to be considered covered in the manner suggested by the nom, and the addition of prose as an introduction to this article could help make this more clear. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative.There are many advantages of a list, including the ability to include
entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and it seems appropriate here to use a selection criteria
based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each itemdue to potential subjectivity or disputes related to inclusion for the topic of gender identity. There are also now a variety of wikilinks added to the article, and despite several pointing to various sections of the Non-binary gender article, this appears to serve a useful navigational purpose, and the addition of wikilinks to other articles helps show the wider variety of articles covered by this list than indicated in the nomination statement. As to more specific concerns more recently raised, none of the sources added rely on "user-generated sites like wikis", which a review of the sources can help verify, and a review of the Teen Vogue source can help show that it is more than a fashion magazine, incorporates a source with expertise in the LGBT studies field, and provides secondary commentary about the dictionary definitions highlighted in the article. This article can continue to be developed, similar to all articles, but it is now reliably-sourced and includes wikilinks, as well as a clarified inclusion criteria. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep - the topic of the list is now clearly Notable and encyclopaedic. All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the first few votes seem to have been swayed by the state of the list at the time rather than its appropriateness or Notability. But WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This list is unsourced nonsense and probably an unencylopedic list given the lack of clear inclusion criteria.This does not apply to the current article, and in any event, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
updated comment, you can do that by striking your erroneous !vote rationale and replacing your own !vote with an update. The fact is that TenPoundHammer provided an appropriate !vote update and that you, rather than doing the same, opted to argue with them in reply to their !vote. Then when I call attention to the low-quality !votes that opened the AfD, you, rather than updating your !vote, choose to argue with me in reply to my !vote, making the rather bizarre claim that I ought to parse the replies to another editor's !vote in order to triangulate an updated version of yours (and of the nominator's, presumably) because you cannot be bothered to format that information clearly and in the correct place. This is a nonsense argument, which you seem unable to make without personal attacks. I suggest you let it go. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT(emphasis added for the text you cut when quoting me above). That point wasn't directed at your original !vote or your subsequent comments. Both the original nom and the nominator's subsequent comment at 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC) present essentially IDONTLIKEIT rationales, and don't deal with the demonstrated Notability of the topic or the quality of the sources in a meaningful way. The additional comment, for example, dismisses admitted RS that
have no expertise in a relevant academic field, as though this were relevant to the Notability or suitability of the list - we are not writing a supplement to the DSM-6, here. Also, the reason offered for doing this is essentially WP:CRYSTAL - what might happen in future if we admit non-MEDRS now to what is not a MEDRS topic.
specific people that you then admitted to not having read whatsoever, which doesn't relate to anything I said, ever - I read the whole discussion as it exists each time I respond, but that doesn't oblige me to reply to all of it. You stated that I
didn't bother to read any of the updated comments, but I have repeatedly pointed out that my criticism was directed at the early, unaltered votes on the AfD (and the nom) - I have in each instance clearly stated to what I am responding, I am under no obligation to WP:SATISFY you by responding to other things, and the fact, demonstrated in my previous paragraph, that you are misreading my comments that you try to quote back at me makes your complaints about my reading and your repeating your errors as "facts" seem, well, reasonably rich in irony. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 02:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded with addition of a secondary source, but I couldn't find anything else. Also, the "Canadian Materials" citation does not appear to be a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Champions of the Wild has evolved into one of the longest- running documentary series to emerge from B.C.'s still fledgling indigenous film and television industry. From the moment it first aired on the Discovery Channel in 1996, the series touched a nerve with viewers with its news-driven, information-oriented take on everything from a research project dedicated to saving the Bengal tiger in India and a program to save East Africa's last surviving herds of wild elephants to West Africa's first economically self- sustaining wildlife sanctuary in Burkina Faso. The series' fourth season will kick off Monday with a profile of Vancouver Island research scientist Jim Cosgrove and his work with the giant Pacific octopus, the Moby Dick of West Coast underwater lore. The film recently won a pair of awards at two major U.S. documentary film festivals -- an auspicious beginning for the new season. The series is now seen in the U.K., Australia and in the U.S., on the American cable channel Animal Planet. In Canadian television terms, four years for a wildlife documentary series that doesn't feature David Suzuki and doesn't air on the national public broadcaster is unprecedented. Bruyere says the target now is the elusive 65 episodes -- 52 down, 13 to go -- which will allow Omni Films to float Champions on the lucrative syndication market."
The review notes: "This is classic nature programming, without any particular twists to hold young, media-savvy viewers. The narrator is omniscient, omnipresent, and uninvolved, creating a sense of detachment from the animals and the scientists. The discussions of animal behavior are always interesting, but they're no different from the norm."
The article notes: "Wildlife shows are a staple of television. Even a cursory channel surf usually turns up one of these cheery programs, full of colourful images, a bit of gratuitous sex, and overblown narration. So it was with some trepidation that I approached this 13-video National Film Board series. These 25-minute videos, covering gorillas, grizzlies, wolves, polar bears, swift foxes, orangutans, lemurs, pandas, humpbacks, right whales, orcas, sharks and dolphins, turned out to be the class of their genre. ... The series does not avoid controversy. The grizzly program addresses habitat loss due to clear-cut logging in British Columbia's coastal rain forest. ... Champions of the Wild is a quality Canadian entry into the wildlife video genre. The series reminds us of the massive impact we have on ecosystems and the fragile position of those key; stone species at the top of each ecosystem's food web."
The article notes: "Champions of the Wild has evolved to the point where a few extra dollars in financing from the Canadian Television Fund -- funded equally by the federal government and the Canadian cable industry -- is not going to make or break its existence, but money has created its share of headaches just the same. Bruyere estimates Champions of the Wild's average budget at $140,000 an instalment, as opposed to the $1 million typically lavished on an hour-long BBC nature film."
The article notes: "This stunning series, which has been shown on the Discovery Channel, introduces viewers to the people, zoologists, veterinarians, biologists, psychologists and others who have dedicated their lives to championing the causes of the featured endangered animals. We hear inspiring stories of how these conservationist came to work with their chosen animals and what the work involves. But more than this, each video provides extensive information on the animals, the natural history of their habitats, and wildlife conservation. ... More than half of the "champions" depicted are women which should help inspire young females who are interested in the sciences. The thoughtful presentation of ideas around conservation issues would be useful to stimulate group discussions."
The article notes: "A $2-million television series about Canadians working to protect wildlife around the world, produced by Vancouver's Omni Film Productions, will air this fall on the Discovery channel. The 13-episode Champions of the Wild will air Wednesday nights beginning Oct. 1 as part of Discovery's new fall lineup, announced Tuesday in Toronto. It is one of seven new Canadian series Discovery will air this fall."
The review notes: "The sound quality is excellent. The varied (close-up, distant, wide angle) images are of high technical quality. In Sharks, which features Dr. Sam Gruber and Canadian photographer Tim Calver, still images are interspersed with live action. The videos are accompanied by a helpful summary of the video, pre- and post-viewing questions and three related Web sites. Any one of these videos would be an effective introduction or conclusion to a unit on endangered species. They could also be used to explore how animal behaviorists work."
The article notes: "There seems to be no end to the number of people who dedicate their lives to the protection and preservation of wildlife. Get to know some of these special individuals as a new season of Champion Of The Wild takes you to places near and far."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sources found include [43] and [44], however both are at best trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirect, if desired, can be handled as a matter of editorial process. There is no consensus for one at the moment Star Mississippi 14:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and significant coverage is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete but someone is welcome to create a redirect as a matter of editorial process if they find it helpful Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and significant coverage is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. as to whether this can be handled editorially, and no indication further input is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination when more input might come. Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is basically puffery. A recently (2020) founded organisation that has only garnered brief mentions in local media, usually in relation to their election activism in 2020 and mostly as brief quotes from its staff. Contrary to the requirement of NORG, it has not received significant coverage in independent sources and thus does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.To put it succinctly, there would need to be a number of publications in reliable sources about the organisation. The listed references don't offer that – they only contain a few quotes from Kaushik plus a few video appearances of him. That's not what is meant by significant coverage of an organisation. — kashmīrī TALK 07:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 03:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON, no evidence filming has begun, should be moved back to draft, and copy-paste move should be repaired BOVINEBOY 2008 14:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Article about someone married to a notable politician however not notable on their own fails WP:ANYBIO. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 17:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 14:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 21:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus as to whether it should be kept or redirected, but that can be handled editorially since no one is arguing for deletion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Zero sourcing found. Involvement of Rhett & Link does not transfer notability from them. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not appear to be notable. She has published a lot, but there's otherwise little biographical information published about her in reliable sources. The article was written by a single editor who also wrote much of the equivalent article on es.wp Ohc revolution of our times 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
1. There are no copyright violations. 2. It doesn’t contain inflammatory redirects or disparages their subject or others like these. 3. This isn’t advertising or spam, the topic, a biography, is relevant enough to appear in the encyclopedia, due to the issues that Rojas Rabiela has investigated, as you can see below. 4. It doesn’t contain forks. 5. It has enough reliable, verifiable sources. 6. Its topic has enough notability, It’s about a researcher and writer on technologies, the culture of water and labor in pre-Hispanic cultures, of New Spain and its heritage in today's technologies and culture. Surely she’s not as remarkable as Émile Durkheim, Michel Foucault or Margaret Read (I'm surprised that the article about such a famous anthropologist as Read is so short!) but, for example, let us think of the researchers who will search Wikipedia for information on the topics that Rojas Rabiela has investigated: they will find an author and the bibliography that she has written on those topics. 7. The article is about a living person, it denotes her studies, research, books and articles she has written and published, and awards she has won, it doesn’t touch on any sensitive or private life aspect. We need to recall that biographies of living persons require at least one source (sic) in any form (references, external links, etc.) I have included sufficient references and external links to reliable, acceptable pages and sites. 8. It doesn’t contain redundant or useless templates. 9. The article is included only in the categories to which it belongs. 10. It doesn’t have links to obsolete, unused or non-free files. I think that all of us, users and administrators, must follow these policies, not add arguments like the one that has been proposed that the article be deleted because it has been written by a single editor (I) just like the article in Spanish, as it certainly is. This does not make me ill-intentioned or suspicious. It isn’t a Wikipedia Deletion Policy. The article is a translation and improvement from an article that appears already in Wikipedia in Spanish from 2013. I think translate articles from Wikipedia in other languages is valid or it should be valid. I hope the article remains. Best regards. -- Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón ( talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC. Not mentioned in the 3 references in the article, references only mention his notable family members and presume data there applies to him. Notability is not inherited or based on relationships to notable people. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#12 (recreation of previously deleted copyvio material). (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Princess Christine of Ligne
Biography of a living person with no valid references, and about whom a previous BLP has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Christine of Orléans-Braganza. A redirect from Princess Christine of Ligne was deleted, because these are two forms of the name of the same person. I have not seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this article for G4. Sourcing is even more important for a biography of a living person than for other Wikipedia articles. However, this article has two references, neither of which can be checked. The first reference, https://www.monarquia.org/, results in warnings from both Firefox and Chrome. I did not attempt to view the rogue web site. The second reference, http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/nr01/2012/10/remise-de-lordre-de-sainte-isabel-par-la-duchesse-de-bragance/#comment-325293 , returns the message "Page non trouvee", and the familiar code 404. Maybe the first reference can be viewed with a special browser, but one reference does not establish general notability, especially not when there has already been an AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Most coverage seem to be small reviews driven by affiliate marketing, press release, etc. There's consensus that CoinDesk should not be considered to establish notability (see WP:RSP), and BetaKit coverage seems to be insufficient to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
2022-03 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability. Bgsu98 ( talk) 00:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Promotional and fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:55, 30 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 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Has a few writing credits to his name, but sourcing is nonexistant. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Potentially notable. scope_creep Talk 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage anywhere. Srijanx22 ( talk) 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:48, 30 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 13:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable. Refs are blogs. No real coverage. scope_creep Talk 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails ncorp. Native advertising. scope_creep Talk 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GCSE Science. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:SYNTH and possible WP:OR of various sources unrelated to the topic. I do not see in a sampling of the sources any actual mention of the purported subject. It's also heavy on Primary documents and citations such as nature are to listing of articles on nature.com Slywriter ( talk) 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
non-notable band, no significant coverage, no major reviews PRAXIDICAE💕 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Studio audience. ✗ plicit 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Lacks sufficient references. At best, redirect to Audience response or one of the other wikilinked articles mentioned. Geoff | Who, me? 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Greg Giraldo. ✗ plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. Delete or redirect to the comedian's article, Greg Giraldo. Geoff | Who, me? 22:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Larry Wright (cartoonist). With four people calling to merge in <24 hours, I see no reason to oppose this. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Defunct comic strip with very little coverage. I created this stub back in 2009 and it has not changed one iota since. Sources are an encyclopedia, 404, and a primary source that's now dead. Deprodded because "it warrants coverage" Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
a strip that lasted for 25 years warrants coverage. I stand by that view. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. However, a person with the same name [4] appears on the Coral Sun Airways page as the founder. Don't think this is the same person however. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability; 10th place finish on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 ( talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers. ATD. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 04:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Survivor: Ghost Island#Contestants. ✗ plicit 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability; 13th place finish on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 ( talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient, especially for a BLP Star Mississippi 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Fully recognizing that others may not use the same measurement, though, I stand by the recommendation that if not kept, a merge to Tuvalu national football team be considered as the alternative given his high standing with the team and the fact that there is some coverage out there in the first place, which is much more than some of his teammates. - 2pou ( talk) 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"or whatever it's supposed to be"comes off quite rude. You can clearly see that this is a person by taking a look at the article. - 2pou ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. there is no independent sourcing that backs up the claims to notability, so nothing to merge. Star Mississippi 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tuvalu national football team. Consensus is clear that coverage isn't at GNG level, but this is a valid ATD. Content is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 14:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep The second reference is very obviously not just a trivial mention, so the rationale for this nomination is invalid. 172.58.110.253 ( talk) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
two (at best) simply would not meet WP:GNG, we will just not see eye to eye there (though your borderline comment has talked me back in this case). GNG has always been an intentionally low bar to meet, and my personal inclination is anything that has two sources of at least WP:100W (essay, I know, but it's something to measure "significant" with) will meet GNG as two is multiple. As I said, that's just me, though. All the best, 2pou ( talk) 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In this instance some claims to coverage significant and widespread enough to satisfy gng. Needs further discussion to create a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
22:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
AD.nl article (I tracked down the actual link) | There are exactly 3 non-quote sentences in this article, zero of them specifically on Vaisua Liva (as opposed to the pair of him and Alopua) | ✘ No | ||
TNFA | The player's own football association is obviously not independent | ? No point checking since the source is not independent | ✘ No | |
Oceania Football Confederation link #1 (access denied) | OFC is ofc not independent of its members | ? | ✘ No | |
Oceania Football Confederation link #2 (access denied) | ? | ✘ No | ||
Oceania Football Confederation link #3 (access denied) | ? | ✘ No | ||
Oceania Football Confederation link #4 (access denied) | ✘ No | |||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
JoelleJay ( talk) 04:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't find any sources about this individual. There's a chance they're out there, given his art seems to have been primarily published pre-1980, but I couldn't find anything. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't find any sources. Prod contested on talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
*Delete per nom. Found nothing to support notability.
DonaldD23
talk to me
04:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The article provides 113 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "His bark is worse Ten Deadliest Snakes (Eden, 3pm/9pm) Without a hint of sheepishness, Nigel Marven concedes in turn that (a) these are only the 10 deadliest snakes in Costa Rica, and (b) at least half of them aren't deadly at all, although they might give you a nasty nip. The fact that the list is restricted to one Central American country explains the absence of usual suspects such as cobras, mambas and taipans, with the rare, lengthy bushmaster taking the top place in a line-up dominated by varieties of viper. When not snake-spotting, Marven visits a lab that conducts research on them and hears how horses are used to produce antivenom."
The article provides 118 words of coverage about the subject. The article note: "Nigel Marven counts down his list of the Top 10 deadliest snakes in four parts of the world. From the rice paddies of India to the jungles of Malaysia, from the heat of the Australian Outback to the green fields of the English countryside, he uncovers incredible serpents and a host of other animals. In Malaysia he meets worshippers and vipers at Penang's famous snake temple and takes a boat trip through the mangrove swamps of Langkawi. In India thousands of people are killed by snake bites every year. In Australia, he encounters the most toxic serpent in the world, and in Europe his journey takes him from the ancient ruins of Turkey to the mountains of Spain."
The article provides 89 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "For the first of serpent expert Nigel Marven's new series, he heads to Costa Rica, which has a larger range of deadly snakes than seems strictly fair. Thankfully, the Costa Rican anti-venom business appears to be going great guns. Almost as gung-ho with his handling of such creatures as the late Steve Irwin – one has to presume he knows what he's doing – he grabs hold of any snake he sees with a zesty enthusiasm, including the terciopelo pit viper, which is responsible for half the bites in the country."
The article provides 73 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Maybe I'm alone in this, but I can't help thinking that making a job out of chasing venomous snakes all over the world is a way of asking for trouble. But Nigel Marven doesn't agree, and htis show will highlight the 10 deadliest snakes in the world from locations such aas Australia, which is home to the most venemous snake, and India, where thousands of people apparently die from snake bits every year."
The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "According to The Sunday Mail, the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (Barb) showed that fewer people tuned in to Mr Salmond’s debut show than watched Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven, on the Eden channel."
The article provides 75 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "UKTV’s natural history channel Eden has pre-bought Ten Deadliest Snakes, a three-part wildlife series hosted by Nigel Marven. The upcoming series will follow the presenter as he Marven travels to America, South Africa and Costa Rica, to count down his list of each nation’s ten deadliest snakes."
The article provides 51 words of coverage. The article note: "Underrated natural historian Nigel Marven is back with an entire new series screened back-to-back in one evening, ..."
The article notes: "He'll be educating people of all ages about serpents when his new series, Ten Deadliest Snakes With Nigel Marven, begins. As part of the series, he visits reptile-rich countries like America, South Africa and Costa Rica. ... Ten Deadliest Snakes starts on Eden on Thursday, June 19"
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lack of notability and reads like an advertisement/cv. I came across this page after finding spam advertisements in social media comment sections that point people towards a WhatsApp number they can call for advice, and I am worried that this page is being used in order to legitimise a potential scam. Jāzeps ( talk) 20:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete per G7. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced and not notable Artem.G ( talk) 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Entertainment Studios#Talk and magazine series. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Very few sources found. Prod contested as it's been prodded before, which Twinkle somehow failed to notice Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks Notability Zaynab1418 ( talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable person. There are no in-line citations. In two of the books I checked given as references she is not mentioned at all. The notability of her father or son does not carry over to her. Searching for sources in English and Persian only brings up things about Bibi Khanum Astarbadi and Bibi Khanum mosque. I am not sure this is her given name vs it being a nickname/honorific as she has no given surname ("Lady Bibi"). The only information that comes up about her is copied from this Wikipedia page. -- Zaynab1418 ( talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
*Keep there are several offline sources in the further reading section. Unless someone has checked them out and is satisfied that they don’t amount to in depth coverage, we should not delete.
Mccapra (
talk)
01:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Can't find much on a BEFORE. Seems like a non-notable iOS game. Previous AfD only picked up twk suitable refs. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep, according to participants except the nominator, this subject is considered notable by its coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Seasonal monthly event that has only local coverage. Does not appear to be notable. Paid creation. valereee ( talk) 17:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST. The TV Guide review is a dead link. The Film Creator ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Taku Kitazaki. ✗ plicit 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. I tried to improve the article some time ago, but all I could find were primary sources and no useful secondary sources. - Xexerss ( talk) 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
17:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ikki Kajiwara. ✗ plicit 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The article only has one source and there is no evidence of notability. - Xexerss ( talk) 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
17:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Inadequate sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. A search does not reveal any meaningful coverage other than WP:PLOT summaries which are WP:NOT sufficient for an encyclopedic article. Jontesta ( talk) 16:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there are several somewhat weak arguments for keeping the article, but a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and some reasonable grounds to expect that additional work can be done to improve the article. There is no reason to expect that further extending discussion here will yield further clarity.
BD2412
T
06:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
aside from the TNIE review, there is nothing else significant in terms of sources about the author or the book. Du Beat is a student paper and is pretty insignificant, Zee News doesn't even have a byline and the rest are utterly unreliable. Also worth noting this book was included along with a few sources in the AFD'd Harsh Agarwal, which was also found to be non-notable PRAXIDICAE💕 21:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This excludes ... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties ... speak about the book. What is an interview if not that?A blog article republished in a publication of unknown reliability in a "lounge" back page isn't reliable by any measure. There is nothing to suggest the author is a journalist. Hemantha ( talk) 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works. The things that appear in "leisure" sections of much more reputed papers sometimes aren't credible; it takes much more than a simple statement to show why the "Metro Lounge" page is. Hemantha ( talk) 13:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
16:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Spawn (character). Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
A search did not reveal any significant coverage as defined in the WP:GNG, which is needed to create a WP:VERIFIABLE article that is WP:NOT just an editor's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Article does not meet most of our key policies and guidelines. Jontesta ( talk) 16:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Fails notability WP:GNG. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL. Most coverage is routine mentions of his unsuccessful candidacy. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
A search revealed no meaningful coverage to support this article, as required by the WP:GNG. Article is entirely WP:OR, with scant sources that do not meet Wikipedia's minimums. Jontesta ( talk) 16:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of collectible card games. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded with suggestion to merge, but the article is too short and unsourced for any content to be worth merging. This does not seem to be a notable game, as I was unable to find sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Previous AFD in 2020 closed as "no consensus". Only source is a review of Godspell where he is mentioned in passing. Most of his roles are "additional voices" or background characters, with a short-lived game show being his only major recurring role. I created this article a billion years ago with hopes of growing it, but it just never happened. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This guy did one relatively minor thing once. This obviously doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gtag10 ( talk) 15:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a rail spot that failed to disappear from the topos when the rail line did. No signs of a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 15:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
As a programming block and not a show in its own right, I was only able to verify that it exists. Every hit on ProQuest was either a TV Guide listing or a passing mention in the form of "ABC is going to show ____ on ABC Monday Night Movie tonight". No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country, even if it were true; is entirely irrelevant to the question here, which is "does this topic meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia"? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia started in 2001. The embryo of Lists of People on Postage Stamps (LPPS) started in 2002 and has been added to sporadically over the last 20 years. Philately is a hobby so updates occurred once in a while as collectors chose to enhance the data. I chose to update Central and South America in 2013 and was doing the same in 2022. I followed the format and content developed over 20 years. I believed that it had been vetted and approved before I started my updates. Hundreds of volunteers have dedicated thousands of hours to creating and maintaining these lists. Obviously there is no point in continuing.
For some reason, this particular set of lists (LPPS) seems to have galled users Fram, Johnpacklambert, and TenPoundHammer to the point where they have initiated a complete purge of the list tree. One of them actually referred to the lists as "philatelykruft". (I assume "kruft" is Newspeak for Bovine Fecal Matter). There was no round table discussion on how to improve the articles. There was no call for volunteers to work on changes or improvements. There was no effort to make the list more "notable" (a highly vague concept). Instead a major purge has been started. Further discussion is meaningless in AfDs since the purge effort is in full swing.
Thank you to all of the stamp collectors who built the lists over the years (although you may never see my thanks!!!). I had enough notice that I was able to take copies of many of the files for my personal use. I am saddened that so much effort is being destroyed. Good bye Bill Blampied ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. This is barely a list, as it only contains nine people, not a single one of whom is sourced. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Standard "list of people on the postage stamps of X" list. This is woefully incomplete, and while sources are added, there is still no proof of meeting WP:SALAT. The sources given prove that these people were on the stamp, but not that it's a topic worthy of attention. And since when are "gubernatorial election" and "Puerto Rican flag" people? Obligatory ping of @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Delete rationales seem stronger here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yet another boilerplate "List of people on the postage stamps of X" marathon. The lists are entirely unsourced and unmaintained. There is no evidence that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT, and the consensus to delete such lists is overwhelming. All of these were deprodded with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again -- just because you can corroborate all of these through a stamp catalog doesn't mean it's a noteworthy list on its own. Obligatory ping of @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject is non-notable, article largely written by paid editors. WP:BEFORE reveals a single relevant source: a two-page discussion in an obscure textbook. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. During the Azovstal siege, a number of fighters' photos were published in international media because the facility was not accessible to the press. This does not give them notability in my view. The two main WP:RSs are the Euronews article and the Guardian article. In the latter, he is literally mentioned only for a photo credit, ergo not WP:SIGCOV. In the former, the main subject are the photos by him – it's not, in any meaningful sense, an article about him or even his photography but a way to show the photos, I therefore would not consider it coverage of him. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Renomination at a time when there's more input might be a help, but no indication a 3rd week now will Star Mississippi 18:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability. No coverage at all other than listings and listing type reviews on some database type websites. Film was never really released. Article has been recreated about 6 times, including after an AFD. Possibly should be salted. North8000 ( talk) 13:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 03:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Unreferenced, and fails notability criteria for academics. – Ploni ( talk) 11:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted (Block evasion, no legitimate sources that mention subject's name). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Repeatedly recreated under Birmal Hembram, which has been salted a month ago, but I cannot see what's behind the deleted versions. I will note that the first source does not mention the person at all. If kept, the original article should be unsalted and this article moved back to its original location without the period at the end. -- MuZemike 13:59, 30 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 14:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as an early settler of an individual midsized city. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and requires him to get over
WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but the only references present here at all are genealogical documents on FamilySearch or Find-a-Grave used solely to support his birth and death dates, which are not notability-supporting sources, and the article has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues since 2016 without ever having any new sources added to boost his notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be a subject of actual media coverage about him.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a radio personality and former tennis player, not
reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for broadcasters or tennis players. When it comes to radio, the notability claim is that her show exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- but the radio content is referenced entirely to her own employers rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in third-party sources. And when it comes to tennis, there's a claim here that might possibly satisfy
WP:NTENNIS (I'm admittedly not knowledgeable enough about tennis to know if it does or not) if it were sourced properly, but is still cited exclusively to deadlinked
primary source directories rather than any evidence of GNG-worthy media coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from actually having to have any reliable source coverage in real media. Even if a person has a plausible potential notability claim, they still have to have reliable source coverage to support it.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Insignificant village, fails WP:GEOLAND#2. I suggest to rewrite as redirect to the municipality of Samopše, which includes this village. FromCzech ( talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced biography of a non-notable living person. DrKay ( talk) 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
A surprisingly long-lived vanity article for a writer (and television executive?) whose main claim to fame seems to be obscure self-published works (see for instance Hollywood under the Covers, published by " Vegas Revolutions, LLC", a defunct company headed by none other than... Brandie Knight, or, amusingly, Self-Publish Like a Pro), and a tangential link to Tommy Chong.
All the existing references belong to blogs and recondite trade publications or fall under WP:PRSOURCE, and the claims of working on various Hollywood projects are totally unsourced. She has received no independent coverage and fails WP:AUTHOR by every possible metric. MasqueDesRonces ( talk) 11:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails notability guidelines for biographies. I cant find any sources about this person on google search. BloatedBun ( talk) 11:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Still fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as none of the brigades are notable on their own. This is just a collection of outdated website links. Since its nomination in 2015 it has essentially been expanded to include a whole heap of poorly sourced fancruft involving numbers of types of appliances and firefighting equipment in each. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be an agreement on whether this article should be improved, or deleted. Several !votes on both the "keep" and "delete" sides are somewhat lacking, and discussion is getting heated, with some name calling going on, so I am going to nip this in the bud now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced since 2003, abandoned since 2010, incomplete even for the years supposedly covered (e.g. 1937, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother). Fram ( talk) 08:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced, very short list, which isn't even complete for the years it covers (e.g. Churchill 1966 or Princess Anne 1973 are missing). With 18 pageviews in the last 90 days, again one of these lists with no interest from either editors or readers. Fram ( talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced (one source doesn't work and doesn't seem like a reliable source anyway), incomplete (e.g. has a stamp from 2001, but misses the Elias Abu Chabake stamp from the same year), and unloved (26 pageviews over the last 90 days). Fram ( talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Even the 1960s part, which looks filled, is very incomplete (e.g. the long series of Mexico 68 gold medal winners is lacking, and the many people on airmail stamps from the period). Largely abandoned since its creation in 2007, except some minor additions in 2013. Not of interest to our readers either, judging from the pageviews. Fram ( talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Very incomplete, abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2004, and mostly unread (some 30 pageviews in the last 90 days before the Proposed deletion). Fram ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. Incomplete (no idea which years it supposedly covers, but e.g. 1980 stamps are missing), abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2015, and unread (18 pageviews in the last 90 days). Fram ( talk) 08:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. but there is no clear consensus to SALT. That can be re-visited if folks find merit. @ PixelMonki: please respect consensus, or you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
First PRODed and then, about a year ago, deleted in a first AfD for failing WP:GNG and the same reasoning still stands. A recent stunt has received some coverage and seen the page re-created. Note high SPA/IP editing. I considered just reverting to the previous redirect, but a new discussion is perhaps in order. If we decide to re-delete, WP:SALTing is recommended given the edit warring the article has seen over the previous redirect. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
enduring notability. I'm not certain Indian Express meets WP:RS. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.0x Deadbeef 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT, and I don't think it's been demonstrated he meets either of them. He was also not elected mayor, so he doesn't meet WP:NPOL. In my nomination statement for the last AfD, I said that the RS material being put forward comprised
routine election coverage and coverage of his YouTube hijinks, rather than coverage of Fosh himself. This remains the case for new material being put forward as potentially establishing notability, so I think the same problem applies. I don't think anything meaningful has changed, except the repeated SPA recreations which I think justify SALTing, which was something advocated by several contributors in the initial discussion last year too. Ralbegen ( talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
enduring notability. His viewer base doesn't seem large enough by WP:NYOUTUBE standards (see the table at the bottom). Bondegezou ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 20:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Most of the sources are interviews or her articles/books. Nothing substantial to satisfy the general notability guidelines Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 06:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 04:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Search fails GNG, no results in books, news yields two minor travel sites. Additionally, this was created for money. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator Firestar464 ( talk) 09:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
A quick search does not seem to indicate WP:GNG. Additionally, this was created for money. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite improvements, I don't see an agreement that the article should be kept. ClaudineChionh if you want the article moved to user / draft space for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Recreation of a previously expired/deleted PRODded article. New version was created by a serial unreferenced article creator who doesn't respond to talk page messages. My prod was something like: Serves as a directory listing for a directory. I'm not seeing reliable secondary significant coverage elsewhere; brief mentions on Google Scholar and elsewhere. Further details: I prodded this one w/o realizing that it had been prodded/deleted previously. I don't recall whether I prodded the previous one (I suspect not) and I don't know whether the creator of this unsourced article created the previous one. I completed a BEFORE but didn't find anything in the significant-secondary-reliable happy place. The person who deprodded this time did it on the technicality of its having been recreated; that person noted that notability is not demonstrated; someone else removed all unsourced content. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine consensus as to whether the improvements are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. per changing circumstances during the discussion. This could be called n/c, but a full reading of the discussion shifts the weight to the Keep !voters Star Mississippi 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Unneeded, unsourced, and misleading list that lists entries like "male" alongside numerous neologisms with zero presence in reliable sources.
There is no need for this list. Noteworthy non-binary genders are already listed at that article. Other notable terms about gender are linked in articles on gender and transgender topics and in navboxes and sidebars.
This article was WP:PRODed and endorsed by Mean as custard and TenPoundHammer, but this was removed by Kvng, pointing to the WP:DEMOLISH essay. As that is an essay, I'd rather point to WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE. Listing every neologism ever thought up for "my gender identity feels unstable" or [object]gender is an undue treatment of gender. It does not matter if the list is ever completed, it is fundamentally misguided and unneeded, with the topic being covered much better by existing articles. Crossroads -talk- 01:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sourcesand the existence of this list could serve a navigational purpose with the inclusion of related articles. Based on available sources, this topic appears to be too broad to be considered covered in the manner suggested by the nom, and the addition of prose as an introduction to this article could help make this more clear. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative.There are many advantages of a list, including the ability to include
entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and it seems appropriate here to use a selection criteria
based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each itemdue to potential subjectivity or disputes related to inclusion for the topic of gender identity. There are also now a variety of wikilinks added to the article, and despite several pointing to various sections of the Non-binary gender article, this appears to serve a useful navigational purpose, and the addition of wikilinks to other articles helps show the wider variety of articles covered by this list than indicated in the nomination statement. As to more specific concerns more recently raised, none of the sources added rely on "user-generated sites like wikis", which a review of the sources can help verify, and a review of the Teen Vogue source can help show that it is more than a fashion magazine, incorporates a source with expertise in the LGBT studies field, and provides secondary commentary about the dictionary definitions highlighted in the article. This article can continue to be developed, similar to all articles, but it is now reliably-sourced and includes wikilinks, as well as a clarified inclusion criteria. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep - the topic of the list is now clearly Notable and encyclopaedic. All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the first few votes seem to have been swayed by the state of the list at the time rather than its appropriateness or Notability. But WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This list is unsourced nonsense and probably an unencylopedic list given the lack of clear inclusion criteria.This does not apply to the current article, and in any event, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
updated comment, you can do that by striking your erroneous !vote rationale and replacing your own !vote with an update. The fact is that TenPoundHammer provided an appropriate !vote update and that you, rather than doing the same, opted to argue with them in reply to their !vote. Then when I call attention to the low-quality !votes that opened the AfD, you, rather than updating your !vote, choose to argue with me in reply to my !vote, making the rather bizarre claim that I ought to parse the replies to another editor's !vote in order to triangulate an updated version of yours (and of the nominator's, presumably) because you cannot be bothered to format that information clearly and in the correct place. This is a nonsense argument, which you seem unable to make without personal attacks. I suggest you let it go. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT(emphasis added for the text you cut when quoting me above). That point wasn't directed at your original !vote or your subsequent comments. Both the original nom and the nominator's subsequent comment at 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC) present essentially IDONTLIKEIT rationales, and don't deal with the demonstrated Notability of the topic or the quality of the sources in a meaningful way. The additional comment, for example, dismisses admitted RS that
have no expertise in a relevant academic field, as though this were relevant to the Notability or suitability of the list - we are not writing a supplement to the DSM-6, here. Also, the reason offered for doing this is essentially WP:CRYSTAL - what might happen in future if we admit non-MEDRS now to what is not a MEDRS topic.
specific people that you then admitted to not having read whatsoever, which doesn't relate to anything I said, ever - I read the whole discussion as it exists each time I respond, but that doesn't oblige me to reply to all of it. You stated that I
didn't bother to read any of the updated comments, but I have repeatedly pointed out that my criticism was directed at the early, unaltered votes on the AfD (and the nom) - I have in each instance clearly stated to what I am responding, I am under no obligation to WP:SATISFY you by responding to other things, and the fact, demonstrated in my previous paragraph, that you are misreading my comments that you try to quote back at me makes your complaints about my reading and your repeating your errors as "facts" seem, well, reasonably rich in irony. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. ✗ plicit 02:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deprodded with addition of a secondary source, but I couldn't find anything else. Also, the "Canadian Materials" citation does not appear to be a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "Champions of the Wild has evolved into one of the longest- running documentary series to emerge from B.C.'s still fledgling indigenous film and television industry. From the moment it first aired on the Discovery Channel in 1996, the series touched a nerve with viewers with its news-driven, information-oriented take on everything from a research project dedicated to saving the Bengal tiger in India and a program to save East Africa's last surviving herds of wild elephants to West Africa's first economically self- sustaining wildlife sanctuary in Burkina Faso. The series' fourth season will kick off Monday with a profile of Vancouver Island research scientist Jim Cosgrove and his work with the giant Pacific octopus, the Moby Dick of West Coast underwater lore. The film recently won a pair of awards at two major U.S. documentary film festivals -- an auspicious beginning for the new season. The series is now seen in the U.K., Australia and in the U.S., on the American cable channel Animal Planet. In Canadian television terms, four years for a wildlife documentary series that doesn't feature David Suzuki and doesn't air on the national public broadcaster is unprecedented. Bruyere says the target now is the elusive 65 episodes -- 52 down, 13 to go -- which will allow Omni Films to float Champions on the lucrative syndication market."
The review notes: "This is classic nature programming, without any particular twists to hold young, media-savvy viewers. The narrator is omniscient, omnipresent, and uninvolved, creating a sense of detachment from the animals and the scientists. The discussions of animal behavior are always interesting, but they're no different from the norm."
The article notes: "Wildlife shows are a staple of television. Even a cursory channel surf usually turns up one of these cheery programs, full of colourful images, a bit of gratuitous sex, and overblown narration. So it was with some trepidation that I approached this 13-video National Film Board series. These 25-minute videos, covering gorillas, grizzlies, wolves, polar bears, swift foxes, orangutans, lemurs, pandas, humpbacks, right whales, orcas, sharks and dolphins, turned out to be the class of their genre. ... The series does not avoid controversy. The grizzly program addresses habitat loss due to clear-cut logging in British Columbia's coastal rain forest. ... Champions of the Wild is a quality Canadian entry into the wildlife video genre. The series reminds us of the massive impact we have on ecosystems and the fragile position of those key; stone species at the top of each ecosystem's food web."
The article notes: "Champions of the Wild has evolved to the point where a few extra dollars in financing from the Canadian Television Fund -- funded equally by the federal government and the Canadian cable industry -- is not going to make or break its existence, but money has created its share of headaches just the same. Bruyere estimates Champions of the Wild's average budget at $140,000 an instalment, as opposed to the $1 million typically lavished on an hour-long BBC nature film."
The article notes: "This stunning series, which has been shown on the Discovery Channel, introduces viewers to the people, zoologists, veterinarians, biologists, psychologists and others who have dedicated their lives to championing the causes of the featured endangered animals. We hear inspiring stories of how these conservationist came to work with their chosen animals and what the work involves. But more than this, each video provides extensive information on the animals, the natural history of their habitats, and wildlife conservation. ... More than half of the "champions" depicted are women which should help inspire young females who are interested in the sciences. The thoughtful presentation of ideas around conservation issues would be useful to stimulate group discussions."
The article notes: "A $2-million television series about Canadians working to protect wildlife around the world, produced by Vancouver's Omni Film Productions, will air this fall on the Discovery channel. The 13-episode Champions of the Wild will air Wednesday nights beginning Oct. 1 as part of Discovery's new fall lineup, announced Tuesday in Toronto. It is one of seven new Canadian series Discovery will air this fall."
The review notes: "The sound quality is excellent. The varied (close-up, distant, wide angle) images are of high technical quality. In Sharks, which features Dr. Sam Gruber and Canadian photographer Tim Calver, still images are interspersed with live action. The videos are accompanied by a helpful summary of the video, pre- and post-viewing questions and three related Web sites. Any one of these videos would be an effective introduction or conclusion to a unit on endangered species. They could also be used to explore how animal behaviorists work."
The article notes: "There seems to be no end to the number of people who dedicate their lives to the protection and preservation of wildlife. Get to know some of these special individuals as a new season of Champion Of The Wild takes you to places near and far."
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sources found include [43] and [44], however both are at best trivial. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirect, if desired, can be handled as a matter of editorial process. There is no consensus for one at the moment Star Mississippi 14:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and significant coverage is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete but someone is welcome to create a redirect as a matter of editorial process if they find it helpful Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and significant coverage is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. as to whether this can be handled editorially, and no indication further input is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination when more input might come. Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is basically puffery. A recently (2020) founded organisation that has only garnered brief mentions in local media, usually in relation to their election activism in 2020 and mostly as brief quotes from its staff. Contrary to the requirement of NORG, it has not received significant coverage in independent sources and thus does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.To put it succinctly, there would need to be a number of publications in reliable sources about the organisation. The listed references don't offer that – they only contain a few quotes from Kaushik plus a few video appearances of him. That's not what is meant by significant coverage of an organisation. — kashmīrī TALK 07:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 03:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON, no evidence filming has begun, should be moved back to draft, and copy-paste move should be repaired BOVINEBOY 2008 14:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Article about someone married to a notable politician however not notable on their own fails WP:ANYBIO. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 17:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 14:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 21:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus as to whether it should be kept or redirected, but that can be handled editorially since no one is arguing for deletion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Zero sourcing found. Involvement of Rhett & Link does not transfer notability from them. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not appear to be notable. She has published a lot, but there's otherwise little biographical information published about her in reliable sources. The article was written by a single editor who also wrote much of the equivalent article on es.wp Ohc revolution of our times 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
1. There are no copyright violations. 2. It doesn’t contain inflammatory redirects or disparages their subject or others like these. 3. This isn’t advertising or spam, the topic, a biography, is relevant enough to appear in the encyclopedia, due to the issues that Rojas Rabiela has investigated, as you can see below. 4. It doesn’t contain forks. 5. It has enough reliable, verifiable sources. 6. Its topic has enough notability, It’s about a researcher and writer on technologies, the culture of water and labor in pre-Hispanic cultures, of New Spain and its heritage in today's technologies and culture. Surely she’s not as remarkable as Émile Durkheim, Michel Foucault or Margaret Read (I'm surprised that the article about such a famous anthropologist as Read is so short!) but, for example, let us think of the researchers who will search Wikipedia for information on the topics that Rojas Rabiela has investigated: they will find an author and the bibliography that she has written on those topics. 7. The article is about a living person, it denotes her studies, research, books and articles she has written and published, and awards she has won, it doesn’t touch on any sensitive or private life aspect. We need to recall that biographies of living persons require at least one source (sic) in any form (references, external links, etc.) I have included sufficient references and external links to reliable, acceptable pages and sites. 8. It doesn’t contain redundant or useless templates. 9. The article is included only in the categories to which it belongs. 10. It doesn’t have links to obsolete, unused or non-free files. I think that all of us, users and administrators, must follow these policies, not add arguments like the one that has been proposed that the article be deleted because it has been written by a single editor (I) just like the article in Spanish, as it certainly is. This does not make me ill-intentioned or suspicious. It isn’t a Wikipedia Deletion Policy. The article is a translation and improvement from an article that appears already in Wikipedia in Spanish from 2013. I think translate articles from Wikipedia in other languages is valid or it should be valid. I hope the article remains. Best regards. -- Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón ( talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC. Not mentioned in the 3 references in the article, references only mention his notable family members and presume data there applies to him. Notability is not inherited or based on relationships to notable people. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#12 (recreation of previously deleted copyvio material). (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Princess Christine of Ligne
Biography of a living person with no valid references, and about whom a previous BLP has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Christine of Orléans-Braganza. A redirect from Princess Christine of Ligne was deleted, because these are two forms of the name of the same person. I have not seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this article for G4. Sourcing is even more important for a biography of a living person than for other Wikipedia articles. However, this article has two references, neither of which can be checked. The first reference, https://www.monarquia.org/, results in warnings from both Firefox and Chrome. I did not attempt to view the rogue web site. The second reference, http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/nr01/2012/10/remise-de-lordre-de-sainte-isabel-par-la-duchesse-de-bragance/#comment-325293 , returns the message "Page non trouvee", and the familiar code 404. Maybe the first reference can be viewed with a special browser, but one reference does not establish general notability, especially not when there has already been an AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Most coverage seem to be small reviews driven by affiliate marketing, press release, etc. There's consensus that CoinDesk should not be considered to establish notability (see WP:RSP), and BetaKit coverage seems to be insufficient to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom ( talk) 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
2022-03 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lacks notability. Bgsu98 ( talk) 00:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)