![]() |
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Subject not shown to meet general notability guideline. Sources shown are two Telemetro items of 253 words and 190 words, and one Critica item of 146 words; then there is a supposed Instagram post which is also a dead link. According to my WP:BEFORE scan, this title seems to get next to no attention outside of its home country. PROD contested by creator. ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
22:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:38, 15 November 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 06:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Limited coverage of her, mainly about doing routine things as an ambassador. LibStar ( talk) 22:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to USL League Two. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a soccer team that only existed for one year. Can't find any sources that prove its notability. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines Mpen320 ( talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The one source that might have showed notability - Guardian - is a dead link. My own searches are only yielding user-generated content. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. BLP article disguised as a business articles. References are passing mentions, interviews, profiles and a mix of PR. UPE. scope_creep Talk 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and there does not appear to be much beyond WP:PROMO to merge and my own search has not found more to add. E.g. one of the most-cited references is a 2016 NYT interview, without secondary context; the other most-cited reference (at one point misattributed as Business Insider in the article) is a 2016 Forbes article summarizing a podcast interview; there is also a brief 2018 Business Insider article that has two grafs of non-interview content about the development of her career. The 2020 WWD article is also mostly an interview, with 7 sentences of non-interview content about her career; the 2021 FastCompany article includes promotional quotes, links to purchase products, and prices, as well as a two-graf overview of her career; the 2015 HuffPost article is totally interview. I searched for book reviews beyond the 2009 Instyle capsule in the article but only found a 2016 Cultured Vultures review (e.g. "The Career Code is a book that holds platitudes of practical advice."), so WP:AUTHOR notability does not appear supported. The creator of the article removed [1] a link to a 2020 Vox article that mentions Power indirectly in an image caption and discusses Who What Wear directly, and does not seem to add support for notability. For the option of a redirect, this BLP makes it appear as if Clique Brands and Who What Wear are separately notable entities, but Who What Wear was a brand within Clique Brands, so Clique Brands seems to be the most appropriate redirect target. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
* Delete None of the references on the page talk about him beyond a passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
AndrewYuke (
talk) 12:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock -
Beccaynr (
talk)
00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
References
The rest of the refs are becoming progressively dissaociated from the subject.She is a business women with an advertsing budget she has used extensively to promote her business. Lots of business coverage promoting the business failing WP:PROMO. No WP:SECONDARY sources to verify she is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 12:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe this Wikipedia article should be deleted because it is too similar to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020. Silent-Rains ( talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Played several matches in the third league of the championship of Ukraine. There is no coverage in secondary sources. Yakudza ( talk) 18:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I originally tagged this for speedy delete, but it was reverted (not by original creator). The article appears to have already been deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Juiceslf (musician). Sungodtemple ( talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. While certainly tragic, hundreds of small private aircraft crash every year, and there is little indication that this particular incident will have WP:LASTING impact beyond the initial flurry of media coverage that such crashes unfortunately tend to attract. No wikinotable people were involved, and no airworthiness issues with the C172 nor systemic problems with the airspace system have been implicated. Per longstanding consensus in the WP:AVIATION community, this incident is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Carguychris ( talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This article fails notability: the non-notable phrase "gravitational coupling constant" has no notable or authoritative definition, and is rarely used but has conflicting uses where it does occur (including for the Einstein gravitational constant or the Newtonian constant of gravitation). The meaning used in this article was rarely used by isolated science writers/popularizers, and was largely popularized from there by Wikipedia itself. — Quondum 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
αG is seldom mentioned in the physics literature, etc.). Moreover, all of the text is about a highly nonstandard definition; on the infrequent occasions when actual physics papers use the term, they mean or or something proportional to . We could potentially have a "the term gravitational coupling constant may refer to any of the following" kind of page, but that would require blowing up this article and starting over, and I question the need for it anyway. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
AFD as PROD is contested. The actor does not pass WP:NACTOR. Being the son of a member of Parliament does not confer notability, and being the grandson of a former ex-minister also didn't guarantee any notability. If in the future he became famous, an article could be made but as of now, per WP:CRYSTAL, he didn't have any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is full of WP:OR and like many other comparison-based lists it is just based on the views of Wikipedia users instead of reliable sources. Wareon ( talk) 17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted per WP:G12 by Whpq. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 08:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable book. Fails Wikipedia:NBOOK. Gazal world ( talk) 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Still WP:TOOSOON. Still no major roles since previous AFD in 2018, just supporting ones. Some of the articles concern her social media controversy with another actor and that's not mentioned. Recommend draftify but there was another draft there, so here we are. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of an artist, not
properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for artists. This is referenced overwhelmingly to
primary sources, such as YouTube videos and her own
self-published website about herself and the self-published websites of galleries where her work has been shown, with absolutely no
WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media used at all -- and while there's also a "further reading" section that lists (but does not link) a bunch of additional "sources" that aren't being used as footnotes, they still largely aren't helping much: a lot of them are Q&A interviews in which the subject is talking about herself in the first person, which is fine for verifying facts but doesn't help to build notability as it doesn't represent third party coverage or analysis; a few are merely primary source verification (which doesn't help notability) that she spoke on panels or had shows; and even the few that are genuinely solid and
WP:GNG-worthy all just represent local coverage in her own hometown media market, with no evidence of nationalizing coverage shown at all.
As always, notability is not established just by verifying facts; it's established by demonstrating the existence of third-party coverage and analysis about those facts, such as art critics reviewing her art and people writing about her as the subject rather than simply quoting her as the speaker. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a candidate gets an article only if either (a) he can demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or (b) he can show a credible reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this fails to demonstrate either of those things (it tries for the latter test but misses, because a candidate isn't more special for challenging Person X than they would be for challenging Person Y), and is "referenced" solely to his own campaign website. Bearcat ( talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy close: withdrawn by nominator and no one else voted for anything but 'keep'. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a road, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for roads. As always, the notability test for a road is not automatically passed just by verifying that it exists, and rather a road needs to establish some historical, political or social context for what might make it significantly more notable than most other roads -- but this is referenced solely to Google Maps and a short local news article about 1.2 kilometres of construction, which is the kind of run of the mill sourcing that every road on the planet can show. Bearcat ( talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet notability. I see no non-routine sources talking about this college. The article is not in the either of the templates listed below. Roostery123 ( talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
No WP:SIGCOV, just rewriting of an old 1940s television programme which appears to be neither notable, nor significant, nor remembered. Unsourced except for the BBC. JJLiu112 ( talk) 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Brandon Williams (politician). With the article's creator (and only substantial author) agreeing to a redirect and with no opposition, this debate does not need to remain open for the full week. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Brandon Williams (politician). Article on Brandon Williams has already existed since August 2022, creator must have missed it. Mooonswimmer 15:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing as a Keep as there is not a strong Delete rationale presented. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Not a deletion proposal rather than an ask. I think this could be a weak keep just with what's here but I'm curious what other editors think. Between the #1 charting in Korea and the Chosun coverage (considered reliable per WP:KO/RS) it could maybe scrape by. Both the Chosun sources were my finds from a month ago and I don't remember finding anything else but maybe there's more out there. The group gets consistent coverage these days so it's not impossible. If it's not a keep then redirect to Up10tion#Extended_plays. QuietHere ( talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The articles does not meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. It also does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Jetstreamer Talk 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tori Sparks#Record labels. ✗ plicit 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP There were some quality sources cited, but upon careful inspection they turn out to have nothing to do with the article subject. There's no WP:SIRS established in any of the relevant sources included or with what I can find. Graywalls ( talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article does not make any claims about this person being significant or important. Styx & Stones ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Scottish Amateur Football Association. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
After sending a football club in this league to AfD, I decided to have a look at the league itself, I don't see anything on a google search to consider this is notable. I did "Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association" as a search string and only got five pages. Out of all of those pages I only saw one source which I liked and that was sponsorship. [21]. The rest, well, I see nothing than can contribute to general WP:GNG. There is a similar problem with the other Scottish Amateur league pages including; Midlands Amateur Football Association, Orkney Amateur Football Association, Perthshire Amateur Football Association, Shetland Football Association, Stirling & District Amateur Football Association, Strathclyde Amateur Football League and Uist & Barra Amateur Football Association. (There are more of these articles around than posted here). Where as we have created these amateur football league association pages, where all the information is acquired from one link which is a primary link. I am still confused why we have these articles when they don't even pass the basic level of our notability guidelines on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Low-level Swiss singer created by a user whose only edits are on that page (possibly related?), does not meet WP:BIO & possibly WP:COI. JJLiu112 ( talk) 08:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Campagnolo. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Seacactus 13 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This discussion has had two relists and still there are comments about what can be done with this article. So, I'm closing this deletion discussion as No consensus and encourage interested editors to keep working to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Non notable programme / activity in Singapore's education system. While the programme is available in the primary/secondary school levels, there is no SIGCOV or GNG for it. BEFORE been done with zero coverage in Singapore's newspaper archive, NewspaperSG. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 07:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Beginning with students, we are looking at a Student Infocomm Outreach Programme that brings the excitement of infocomm technology right into the schools. The establishment of Infocomm Clubs in primary and secondary schools, as well as junior colleges (JC) will be a start. Infocomm Clubs will be part of the Ministry of Education's Co-Curricular Activities or CCA, so students can earn CCA points by participating in the Club's activities [...] In three years' time, we expect more than 150 schools to offer the Infocomm Club programme.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dizzy (series). Stifle ( talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Ref 1 is a non-independent official website, ref 3 (Vintage the New World) has an amateur about us page with only two currently active writers, failing WP:RS requirements, whereas ref 4 has no info on editorial policies and staff, failing WP:RS. Ref 2 is debatably RS, there was a RSN discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228#Flickering Myth, which ended inconclusively. However, it is a routine announcement providing a short two paragraph coverage of the newest Dizzy game, otherwise, it is a general overview of ZX Spectrum Next. My WP:BEFORE search found a routine announcement almost entirely quoted from a press release here (non-SIGCOV), review from Vintage is the New Old (non-RS), and an article here mainly covering mainly biographical information on Jarrod Bentley and only occasionally discusses the game (probably not SIGCOV). Update: Thanks for the news sources the article creator has provided. Unfortunately, this is yet another blog powered by Blogger, whereas this has an about us page but no editorial or correction policies. Sadly, IMO these fail WP:RS requirements. Therefore, IMO this should be redirected to Dizzy (series). VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@
Andrevan: Hmmm. The
first ref looks decent, but it's mostly an image gallery, the text has 189 words, but if the press-release quotes is removed it's just 90 words, which IMHO isn't SIGCOV. Also could you find any discussions about Flickering Myth? I could only find one in
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228. On reliability,
here it's well regarded according to a listicle by
Vuelio (an
iffy source), but Flickering Myth describes itself as a film blog
. Many thanks!
VickKiang
(talk)
02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Coverage - 1
Reviews - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Lanzlink (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracyper WP:RS. However, for the pinged users- if the authors are subject-matter-experts, or if the sites are acceptable per WP:USEBYOTHERS, could you please ping me? If you all agree to keep this I can withdraw the nomination, though I'm standing by it now, many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
aaudio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sourcesper WP:RS.
So, here some other coverages in video and audio format that can be considered RS... - 1/ 1 - 2 - 3 Lanzlink (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist this but I'm seeing a Weak Delete, Weak Keeps and several Redirects along with arguments for those opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I am taking this to AFD as I think PROD will be contested. I think this title is not notable enough per WP:GNG. While the governors of Brazilian states are notable, I do not think their wives are automatically notable. Being the first lady of Mato Grosso do Sul have no special notability when compared to other first ladies from other states. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hyper-local minor party which failed to win any seats in its election. Some minor buzz in local media due to its name, but this party is just not notable. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, and is just a local oddity due to it hijacking the name of a long-dead party.
A side note, there has been a concerted effort to hijack the original and notable A Connecticut Party article to soapbox for this party (not by Scu ba, who has been a genuine good-faith editor here, but by others, including some affiliated with the party). At best, this should be a minor one-sentence mention on the actual party's article. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Two relists and almost a month on AFD hasn't brought forward any more contributions, and I decline to relist further. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle ( talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:MUSIC. The only notability claim apparent here is that their album exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is a mixture of primary sources and blogs or webzines that aren't clearly WP:GNG-worthy -- and the article has been flagged for notability issues since 2014 without ever seeing any significant improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
AFD as PROD is contested. Per WP:NPOL, being an ambassador does not confer any notability. Outside his diplomatic job, he didn't show any other notability, failing WP:SIGCOV. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*Delete There are no secondary sources on this page on the basis of which this page can be called notable Facebook link is not recognized on Wikipedia
WP:RSP.
🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (
talk) 15:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC) strike sockpuppet !vote --
bonadea
contributions
talk
13:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*Delete There is no such deep coverage on the basis of which can be called notable Person.
D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (
talk) 15:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock
Beccaynr (
talk)
17:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Contested draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR. Multiple references, but none verify notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, irrelevant, illiterate nonsense. MurrayGreshler ( talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete. All but two of the references do not work, and those two do not demonstrate significant coverage of the company. This appears to be a touring troupe that performs in schools and has only produced about one work per year. The article claims that the company has released films, but no evidence has given that it has done so or that any such films are noteworthy. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced and semi-advertorialized article about a web publication. As always, websites aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but this is completely unsourced, and has been tagged for advertorialism issues since 2013 without ever being toned down, and in fact has been toned up if anything. The first discussion from ten years ago is also not definitive; our notability and sourcing standards in 2022 are tighter than they were a decade ago, and even on the "Google Books" search that was proffered as a reason to keep in 2013, I'm not finding GNG-worthy content about the website so much as I'm finding directory entries for the website. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have any real sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 06:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. It seems like the primary area of dispute has to do with the statement that this is an "official flag". I see a consensus of Keeping this article and I have removed any trace of mention that this is an official flag from the article. This is a flag used by organized groups for their own use and embodying the symbolism they have embued the flag with. But it doesn't recognized an official recognized country or territory. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Hazarajat doesn't have an official flag. This is a proposed flag however this has not been officially accepted as the flag of Hazarajat. Recommend adding a section in the article about this proposed flag. Hazara Birar (Talk) 04:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So far, the participants have made their opinions known. Please allow room for other editors to participate in the discussion. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable schools, and this article consists of nothing more than that and a spammy descriptions. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about former soccer player which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was previously kept via a no consensus outcome at AfD in 2009. At the time, no WP:SIGCOV was identified, and many years later no additional sources have been identified in the article nor through my BEFORE searches ( this routine signing announcement was the best coverage I could find, but it is not remotely close to meeting the GNG). Jogurney ( talk) 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Firewall (film). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This was previously at AFD last year in an interesting AFD that saw substantial participation from the article subject and an AFD closure by a sockpuppet of Expertwikiguy. In my BEFORE search, I found passing mentions and even going to Forte's own website, to the Press section, found very few articles of substance. During my search for Joe Forte, I primarily found references to a basketball player with the same name, Joseph Forte. I'm suggesting that this page be redirected to Firewall (film), his only major success that, unfortunately, got poor reviews.
Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I think the more complicated discussion over possible mergers or moving of content between the two articles is an editing decision, not a deletion decision, that can occur among interested parties on the article talk pages. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This article duplicates coverage of the building in 5th Avenue Theatre and should redirect there. There is no reason for a separate stub that adds nothing that article. This is commonly done with other historic buildings. MB 04:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article for the venue itself doesn't exist, also appears to be WP:SYNTH Sungodtemple ( talk) 03:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Improvements to the article, if any, should be made in order to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not
adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for YouTubers. The article, as written, only just barely goes any further than "YouTuber who exists", and details absolutely no substantive accomplishments that would constitute meaningful notability claims -- and it's referenced to just two footnotes, both of which feature him doing the speaking about other things, instead of being the subject of coverage written by other people as
WP:GNG actually requires.
And even on a Google News search for other sourcing, I still just find a lot of sources in which Xiaoma does the speaking about other subjects, and few to no sources in which other people are analyzing the significance of Xioma's work in the third person.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a consensus can emerge over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG. Current refs include official pages which are not independent, including the first two refs from G-Mode, which are also non-independent as the game series was distributed by G-Mode
. Refs 3 and 4 are Wikipedia (non-reliable) and Twitter (also non-RS). A
WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the
G-Mode Archives,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5 failing
WP:SIGCOV, the only longer coverage is
4 Gamer Net, though that is non-SIGCOV as it's a press release/routine announcement indicated by The following is the content of the manufacturer's announcement as it is
as per the Google translated version, it is only a basic summary of the plot and characters but has little critical commentary. The
Japanese version is no better, almost entirely sourced from G-Mode refs (non-independent).
VickKiang
(talk)
02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Less than 24 hours has passed since article creation. Premature Deletion Nomination. No obvious COI or Advertising. If needed, potential draftify- how is this procedure allowed per WP:NPP inappropriate? VickKiang (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion, and that I am vandalising or disrupting the encyclopedia through this? Alternatively,
The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided- I'd be inclined if you can explain what "completely erroneous" mistake I made. VickKiang (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
So far your rationale is lack of notability, when the article hasnt had enough time for sources to be found- could you demonstrate sources rather than this presumption that somehow my WP:BEFORE search is inadequate? WP:NPP states that:
an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more- I tagged 50 minutes after, I'd be interested that you could explain how this deletion violates these guidelines. For instance, based on your rationale NPP should not CSD or PROD new articles until 24 hours after its creation? Of course, if you could demonstrate more sources I'm willing to withdraw my nomination, but so far I'm confused that without any more refs or source analysis you would vote keep because of how long I waited to AfD the article. VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the G-Mode Archives...in my AfD nom. VickKiang (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It has been shown that several of the sources do not establish notability and are probably hindering the creation and maintenance of an NPOV article. Other sources seem to Indicate that GNG is met, although consensus is not strong here, therefore I discern no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused on this. CSD has been recently declined and I agree with that. Some sources have disclaimers while others are overwhelmingly promotional but in general significant coverage in multiple reliable sources should help it pass GNG. However, similar details come in several sources. Deccan Chronicle source says, "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Could other volunteer editors help me in this? Do these disclaimers mean that there is WP:UPE involved with this submission? Comments please. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:46, 15 November 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 03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SINGER and WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 02:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Here we have another problem which comes up in these GNIS-based articles: I can tell you all about this place, but not using reliable™ sources. It's not a town; there was a trading post from sometime back, and this was eventually joined by several motels and a gas station in hopes of the tourist business. Everything is now closed and abandoned except the gas station. It has an assigned zip code, but the closest post office is in Cameron, over nine miles north. A little north of the businesses is an ADOT yard and the Gray Mountain Bible Church. From aerial photos I can roughly tell when most of these buildings were put up, and I can also see that there were and are no houses around as far back as the early 1950s. But none of this is from usable sources, or in the case of the post office, requires synthesis. I can't even source calling it a ghost town. Searching brings up the usual crap as well as various references to it as a locating point, and I even found a report of a stabbing there; but the latter gives no information about Gray Mountain itself. Presumably newspapers ought to have some references to some of the businesses, but unless one of them has an article about the place I don't see how name drops are going to help. I ust don't see keeping an article for which there aren't reliable sources. Mangoe ( talk) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a procedural nomination. This article was recently tagged for A7 and G11. However, the original patrolling in 2018 didn't tag it for CSD, so that's probably controversial. Hence I'm coming here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Subject not shown to meet general notability guideline. Sources shown are two Telemetro items of 253 words and 190 words, and one Critica item of 146 words; then there is a supposed Instagram post which is also a dead link. According to my WP:BEFORE scan, this title seems to get next to no attention outside of its home country. PROD contested by creator. ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
22:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:38, 15 November 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 06:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Limited coverage of her, mainly about doing routine things as an ambassador. LibStar ( talk) 22:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to USL League Two. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a soccer team that only existed for one year. Can't find any sources that prove its notability. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines Mpen320 ( talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The one source that might have showed notability - Guardian - is a dead link. My own searches are only yielding user-generated content. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. BLP article disguised as a business articles. References are passing mentions, interviews, profiles and a mix of PR. UPE. scope_creep Talk 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and there does not appear to be much beyond WP:PROMO to merge and my own search has not found more to add. E.g. one of the most-cited references is a 2016 NYT interview, without secondary context; the other most-cited reference (at one point misattributed as Business Insider in the article) is a 2016 Forbes article summarizing a podcast interview; there is also a brief 2018 Business Insider article that has two grafs of non-interview content about the development of her career. The 2020 WWD article is also mostly an interview, with 7 sentences of non-interview content about her career; the 2021 FastCompany article includes promotional quotes, links to purchase products, and prices, as well as a two-graf overview of her career; the 2015 HuffPost article is totally interview. I searched for book reviews beyond the 2009 Instyle capsule in the article but only found a 2016 Cultured Vultures review (e.g. "The Career Code is a book that holds platitudes of practical advice."), so WP:AUTHOR notability does not appear supported. The creator of the article removed [1] a link to a 2020 Vox article that mentions Power indirectly in an image caption and discusses Who What Wear directly, and does not seem to add support for notability. For the option of a redirect, this BLP makes it appear as if Clique Brands and Who What Wear are separately notable entities, but Who What Wear was a brand within Clique Brands, so Clique Brands seems to be the most appropriate redirect target. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
* Delete None of the references on the page talk about him beyond a passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
AndrewYuke (
talk) 12:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock -
Beccaynr (
talk)
00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
References
The rest of the refs are becoming progressively dissaociated from the subject.She is a business women with an advertsing budget she has used extensively to promote her business. Lots of business coverage promoting the business failing WP:PROMO. No WP:SECONDARY sources to verify she is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 12:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe this Wikipedia article should be deleted because it is too similar to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020. Silent-Rains ( talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Not notable. Played several matches in the third league of the championship of Ukraine. There is no coverage in secondary sources. Yakudza ( talk) 18:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I originally tagged this for speedy delete, but it was reverted (not by original creator). The article appears to have already been deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Juiceslf (musician). Sungodtemple ( talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. While certainly tragic, hundreds of small private aircraft crash every year, and there is little indication that this particular incident will have WP:LASTING impact beyond the initial flurry of media coverage that such crashes unfortunately tend to attract. No wikinotable people were involved, and no airworthiness issues with the C172 nor systemic problems with the airspace system have been implicated. Per longstanding consensus in the WP:AVIATION community, this incident is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Carguychris ( talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This article fails notability: the non-notable phrase "gravitational coupling constant" has no notable or authoritative definition, and is rarely used but has conflicting uses where it does occur (including for the Einstein gravitational constant or the Newtonian constant of gravitation). The meaning used in this article was rarely used by isolated science writers/popularizers, and was largely popularized from there by Wikipedia itself. — Quondum 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
αG is seldom mentioned in the physics literature, etc.). Moreover, all of the text is about a highly nonstandard definition; on the infrequent occasions when actual physics papers use the term, they mean or or something proportional to . We could potentially have a "the term gravitational coupling constant may refer to any of the following" kind of page, but that would require blowing up this article and starting over, and I question the need for it anyway. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
AFD as PROD is contested. The actor does not pass WP:NACTOR. Being the son of a member of Parliament does not confer notability, and being the grandson of a former ex-minister also didn't guarantee any notability. If in the future he became famous, an article could be made but as of now, per WP:CRYSTAL, he didn't have any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is full of WP:OR and like many other comparison-based lists it is just based on the views of Wikipedia users instead of reliable sources. Wareon ( talk) 17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted per WP:G12 by Whpq. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 08:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable book. Fails Wikipedia:NBOOK. Gazal world ( talk) 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Still WP:TOOSOON. Still no major roles since previous AFD in 2018, just supporting ones. Some of the articles concern her social media controversy with another actor and that's not mentioned. Recommend draftify but there was another draft there, so here we are. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of an artist, not
properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for artists. This is referenced overwhelmingly to
primary sources, such as YouTube videos and her own
self-published website about herself and the self-published websites of galleries where her work has been shown, with absolutely no
WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media used at all -- and while there's also a "further reading" section that lists (but does not link) a bunch of additional "sources" that aren't being used as footnotes, they still largely aren't helping much: a lot of them are Q&A interviews in which the subject is talking about herself in the first person, which is fine for verifying facts but doesn't help to build notability as it doesn't represent third party coverage or analysis; a few are merely primary source verification (which doesn't help notability) that she spoke on panels or had shows; and even the few that are genuinely solid and
WP:GNG-worthy all just represent local coverage in her own hometown media market, with no evidence of nationalizing coverage shown at all.
As always, notability is not established just by verifying facts; it's established by demonstrating the existence of third-party coverage and analysis about those facts, such as art critics reviewing her art and people writing about her as the subject rather than simply quoting her as the speaker. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a candidate gets an article only if either (a) he can demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or (b) he can show a credible reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this fails to demonstrate either of those things (it tries for the latter test but misses, because a candidate isn't more special for challenging Person X than they would be for challenging Person Y), and is "referenced" solely to his own campaign website. Bearcat ( talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy close: withdrawn by nominator and no one else voted for anything but 'keep'. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a road, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for roads. As always, the notability test for a road is not automatically passed just by verifying that it exists, and rather a road needs to establish some historical, political or social context for what might make it significantly more notable than most other roads -- but this is referenced solely to Google Maps and a short local news article about 1.2 kilometres of construction, which is the kind of run of the mill sourcing that every road on the planet can show. Bearcat ( talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet notability. I see no non-routine sources talking about this college. The article is not in the either of the templates listed below. Roostery123 ( talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
No WP:SIGCOV, just rewriting of an old 1940s television programme which appears to be neither notable, nor significant, nor remembered. Unsourced except for the BBC. JJLiu112 ( talk) 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Brandon Williams (politician). With the article's creator (and only substantial author) agreeing to a redirect and with no opposition, this debate does not need to remain open for the full week. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Brandon Williams (politician). Article on Brandon Williams has already existed since August 2022, creator must have missed it. Mooonswimmer 15:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Closing as a Keep as there is not a strong Delete rationale presented. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Not a deletion proposal rather than an ask. I think this could be a weak keep just with what's here but I'm curious what other editors think. Between the #1 charting in Korea and the Chosun coverage (considered reliable per WP:KO/RS) it could maybe scrape by. Both the Chosun sources were my finds from a month ago and I don't remember finding anything else but maybe there's more out there. The group gets consistent coverage these days so it's not impossible. If it's not a keep then redirect to Up10tion#Extended_plays. QuietHere ( talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The articles does not meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. It also does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Jetstreamer Talk 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tori Sparks#Record labels. ✗ plicit 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP There were some quality sources cited, but upon careful inspection they turn out to have nothing to do with the article subject. There's no WP:SIRS established in any of the relevant sources included or with what I can find. Graywalls ( talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article does not make any claims about this person being significant or important. Styx & Stones ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Scottish Amateur Football Association. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
After sending a football club in this league to AfD, I decided to have a look at the league itself, I don't see anything on a google search to consider this is notable. I did "Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association" as a search string and only got five pages. Out of all of those pages I only saw one source which I liked and that was sponsorship. [21]. The rest, well, I see nothing than can contribute to general WP:GNG. There is a similar problem with the other Scottish Amateur league pages including; Midlands Amateur Football Association, Orkney Amateur Football Association, Perthshire Amateur Football Association, Shetland Football Association, Stirling & District Amateur Football Association, Strathclyde Amateur Football League and Uist & Barra Amateur Football Association. (There are more of these articles around than posted here). Where as we have created these amateur football league association pages, where all the information is acquired from one link which is a primary link. I am still confused why we have these articles when they don't even pass the basic level of our notability guidelines on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Low-level Swiss singer created by a user whose only edits are on that page (possibly related?), does not meet WP:BIO & possibly WP:COI. JJLiu112 ( talk) 08:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Campagnolo. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Seacactus 13 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This discussion has had two relists and still there are comments about what can be done with this article. So, I'm closing this deletion discussion as No consensus and encourage interested editors to keep working to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Non notable programme / activity in Singapore's education system. While the programme is available in the primary/secondary school levels, there is no SIGCOV or GNG for it. BEFORE been done with zero coverage in Singapore's newspaper archive, NewspaperSG. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 07:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Beginning with students, we are looking at a Student Infocomm Outreach Programme that brings the excitement of infocomm technology right into the schools. The establishment of Infocomm Clubs in primary and secondary schools, as well as junior colleges (JC) will be a start. Infocomm Clubs will be part of the Ministry of Education's Co-Curricular Activities or CCA, so students can earn CCA points by participating in the Club's activities [...] In three years' time, we expect more than 150 schools to offer the Infocomm Club programme.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dizzy (series). Stifle ( talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Ref 1 is a non-independent official website, ref 3 (Vintage the New World) has an amateur about us page with only two currently active writers, failing WP:RS requirements, whereas ref 4 has no info on editorial policies and staff, failing WP:RS. Ref 2 is debatably RS, there was a RSN discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228#Flickering Myth, which ended inconclusively. However, it is a routine announcement providing a short two paragraph coverage of the newest Dizzy game, otherwise, it is a general overview of ZX Spectrum Next. My WP:BEFORE search found a routine announcement almost entirely quoted from a press release here (non-SIGCOV), review from Vintage is the New Old (non-RS), and an article here mainly covering mainly biographical information on Jarrod Bentley and only occasionally discusses the game (probably not SIGCOV). Update: Thanks for the news sources the article creator has provided. Unfortunately, this is yet another blog powered by Blogger, whereas this has an about us page but no editorial or correction policies. Sadly, IMO these fail WP:RS requirements. Therefore, IMO this should be redirected to Dizzy (series). VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@
Andrevan: Hmmm. The
first ref looks decent, but it's mostly an image gallery, the text has 189 words, but if the press-release quotes is removed it's just 90 words, which IMHO isn't SIGCOV. Also could you find any discussions about Flickering Myth? I could only find one in
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228. On reliability,
here it's well regarded according to a listicle by
Vuelio (an
iffy source), but Flickering Myth describes itself as a film blog
. Many thanks!
VickKiang
(talk)
02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Coverage - 1
Reviews - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Lanzlink (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracyper WP:RS. However, for the pinged users- if the authors are subject-matter-experts, or if the sites are acceptable per WP:USEBYOTHERS, could you please ping me? If you all agree to keep this I can withdraw the nomination, though I'm standing by it now, many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
aaudio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sourcesper WP:RS.
So, here some other coverages in video and audio format that can be considered RS... - 1/ 1 - 2 - 3 Lanzlink (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist this but I'm seeing a Weak Delete, Weak Keeps and several Redirects along with arguments for those opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I am taking this to AFD as I think PROD will be contested. I think this title is not notable enough per WP:GNG. While the governors of Brazilian states are notable, I do not think their wives are automatically notable. Being the first lady of Mato Grosso do Sul have no special notability when compared to other first ladies from other states. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hyper-local minor party which failed to win any seats in its election. Some minor buzz in local media due to its name, but this party is just not notable. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, and is just a local oddity due to it hijacking the name of a long-dead party.
A side note, there has been a concerted effort to hijack the original and notable A Connecticut Party article to soapbox for this party (not by Scu ba, who has been a genuine good-faith editor here, but by others, including some affiliated with the party). At best, this should be a minor one-sentence mention on the actual party's article. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Two relists and almost a month on AFD hasn't brought forward any more contributions, and I decline to relist further. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle ( talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:MUSIC. The only notability claim apparent here is that their album exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is a mixture of primary sources and blogs or webzines that aren't clearly WP:GNG-worthy -- and the article has been flagged for notability issues since 2014 without ever seeing any significant improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
AFD as PROD is contested. Per WP:NPOL, being an ambassador does not confer any notability. Outside his diplomatic job, he didn't show any other notability, failing WP:SIGCOV. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*Delete There are no secondary sources on this page on the basis of which this page can be called notable Facebook link is not recognized on Wikipedia
WP:RSP.
🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (
talk) 15:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC) strike sockpuppet !vote --
bonadea
contributions
talk
13:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*Delete There is no such deep coverage on the basis of which can be called notable Person.
D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (
talk) 15:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock
Beccaynr (
talk)
17:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Contested draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR. Multiple references, but none verify notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, irrelevant, illiterate nonsense. MurrayGreshler ( talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete. All but two of the references do not work, and those two do not demonstrate significant coverage of the company. This appears to be a touring troupe that performs in schools and has only produced about one work per year. The article claims that the company has released films, but no evidence has given that it has done so or that any such films are noteworthy. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced and semi-advertorialized article about a web publication. As always, websites aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but this is completely unsourced, and has been tagged for advertorialism issues since 2013 without ever being toned down, and in fact has been toned up if anything. The first discussion from ten years ago is also not definitive; our notability and sourcing standards in 2022 are tighter than they were a decade ago, and even on the "Google Books" search that was proffered as a reason to keep in 2013, I'm not finding GNG-worthy content about the website so much as I'm finding directory entries for the website. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have any real sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 06:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. It seems like the primary area of dispute has to do with the statement that this is an "official flag". I see a consensus of Keeping this article and I have removed any trace of mention that this is an official flag from the article. This is a flag used by organized groups for their own use and embodying the symbolism they have embued the flag with. But it doesn't recognized an official recognized country or territory. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Hazarajat doesn't have an official flag. This is a proposed flag however this has not been officially accepted as the flag of Hazarajat. Recommend adding a section in the article about this proposed flag. Hazara Birar (Talk) 04:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So far, the participants have made their opinions known. Please allow room for other editors to participate in the discussion. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable schools, and this article consists of nothing more than that and a spammy descriptions. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about former soccer player which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was previously kept via a no consensus outcome at AfD in 2009. At the time, no WP:SIGCOV was identified, and many years later no additional sources have been identified in the article nor through my BEFORE searches ( this routine signing announcement was the best coverage I could find, but it is not remotely close to meeting the GNG). Jogurney ( talk) 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Firewall (film). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This was previously at AFD last year in an interesting AFD that saw substantial participation from the article subject and an AFD closure by a sockpuppet of Expertwikiguy. In my BEFORE search, I found passing mentions and even going to Forte's own website, to the Press section, found very few articles of substance. During my search for Joe Forte, I primarily found references to a basketball player with the same name, Joseph Forte. I'm suggesting that this page be redirected to Firewall (film), his only major success that, unfortunately, got poor reviews.
Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I think the more complicated discussion over possible mergers or moving of content between the two articles is an editing decision, not a deletion decision, that can occur among interested parties on the article talk pages. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This article duplicates coverage of the building in 5th Avenue Theatre and should redirect there. There is no reason for a separate stub that adds nothing that article. This is commonly done with other historic buildings. MB 04:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article for the venue itself doesn't exist, also appears to be WP:SYNTH Sungodtemple ( talk) 03:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Improvements to the article, if any, should be made in order to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not
adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for YouTubers. The article, as written, only just barely goes any further than "YouTuber who exists", and details absolutely no substantive accomplishments that would constitute meaningful notability claims -- and it's referenced to just two footnotes, both of which feature him doing the speaking about other things, instead of being the subject of coverage written by other people as
WP:GNG actually requires.
And even on a Google News search for other sourcing, I still just find a lot of sources in which Xiaoma does the speaking about other subjects, and few to no sources in which other people are analyzing the significance of Xioma's work in the third person.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a consensus can emerge over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG. Current refs include official pages which are not independent, including the first two refs from G-Mode, which are also non-independent as the game series was distributed by G-Mode
. Refs 3 and 4 are Wikipedia (non-reliable) and Twitter (also non-RS). A
WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the
G-Mode Archives,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5 failing
WP:SIGCOV, the only longer coverage is
4 Gamer Net, though that is non-SIGCOV as it's a press release/routine announcement indicated by The following is the content of the manufacturer's announcement as it is
as per the Google translated version, it is only a basic summary of the plot and characters but has little critical commentary. The
Japanese version is no better, almost entirely sourced from G-Mode refs (non-independent).
VickKiang
(talk)
02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Less than 24 hours has passed since article creation. Premature Deletion Nomination. No obvious COI or Advertising. If needed, potential draftify- how is this procedure allowed per WP:NPP inappropriate? VickKiang (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion, and that I am vandalising or disrupting the encyclopedia through this? Alternatively,
The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided- I'd be inclined if you can explain what "completely erroneous" mistake I made. VickKiang (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
So far your rationale is lack of notability, when the article hasnt had enough time for sources to be found- could you demonstrate sources rather than this presumption that somehow my WP:BEFORE search is inadequate? WP:NPP states that:
an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more- I tagged 50 minutes after, I'd be interested that you could explain how this deletion violates these guidelines. For instance, based on your rationale NPP should not CSD or PROD new articles until 24 hours after its creation? Of course, if you could demonstrate more sources I'm willing to withdraw my nomination, but so far I'm confused that without any more refs or source analysis you would vote keep because of how long I waited to AfD the article. VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the G-Mode Archives...in my AfD nom. VickKiang (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It has been shown that several of the sources do not establish notability and are probably hindering the creation and maintenance of an NPOV article. Other sources seem to Indicate that GNG is met, although consensus is not strong here, therefore I discern no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused on this. CSD has been recently declined and I agree with that. Some sources have disclaimers while others are overwhelmingly promotional but in general significant coverage in multiple reliable sources should help it pass GNG. However, similar details come in several sources. Deccan Chronicle source says, "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Could other volunteer editors help me in this? Do these disclaimers mean that there is WP:UPE involved with this submission? Comments please. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:46, 15 November 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 03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SINGER and WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 02:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Here we have another problem which comes up in these GNIS-based articles: I can tell you all about this place, but not using reliable™ sources. It's not a town; there was a trading post from sometime back, and this was eventually joined by several motels and a gas station in hopes of the tourist business. Everything is now closed and abandoned except the gas station. It has an assigned zip code, but the closest post office is in Cameron, over nine miles north. A little north of the businesses is an ADOT yard and the Gray Mountain Bible Church. From aerial photos I can roughly tell when most of these buildings were put up, and I can also see that there were and are no houses around as far back as the early 1950s. But none of this is from usable sources, or in the case of the post office, requires synthesis. I can't even source calling it a ghost town. Searching brings up the usual crap as well as various references to it as a locating point, and I even found a report of a stabbing there; but the latter gives no information about Gray Mountain itself. Presumably newspapers ought to have some references to some of the businesses, but unless one of them has an article about the place I don't see how name drops are going to help. I ust don't see keeping an article for which there aren't reliable sources. Mangoe ( talk) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a procedural nomination. This article was recently tagged for A7 and G11. However, the original patrolling in 2018 didn't tag it for CSD, so that's probably controversial. Hence I'm coming here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)