![]() |
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Article is currently supported only by primary, self-published sources (not counting citations for famous alumni) and was written in large part by editors with an apparent conflict of interest, and I was unable to find sources establishing notability. Worth mentioning:
I was unable to find anything else that could possibly establish notability. Therefore I propose deletion, though I'm mainly looking for some other editors' input here. WPscatter t/ c 08:52, 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!
10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient quality and independence. Star Mississippi 04:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable private school, doesn't meet WP:NORG. Found no useful sources in Google, Google Books, Google News. Article also appears to have a long history of COI edits from staff members. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tokyo Revengers. Since it was a split, there is not a consensus that info requires merging. However the redirect is a valid ATD and the delete !votes don't have a reason not to redirect it. Star Mississippi 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Not enough content to warrant a split from the Tokyo Revengers article. Xexerss ( talk) 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:30, 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!
20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I don't see any consensus here. It sounds like if this article kept, it still needs a lot of work done on it to get it into shape.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage is routine rather than indepth with her as the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 22:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find any coverage. Mainly primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 23:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A movie that I am not convinced passes the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. It was PRODed a few years back, but that was contested due to the one review from DVD Talk being a reliable source. However, as far as I can find, that is the only piece of coverage in reliable sources available. I tried various searches trying to find other reviews, and was unable to find any outside of that one. Rotten Tomatoes also lists zero professional reviews for their entry on the film, as well. The single piece of coverage in a reliable source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, and the writer/director is non-notable themselves, so there is no valid merge target. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
nationally known, the requirement for NFILM criteria 1. My WP:BEFORE only found this, a non-RS site without editorial policies, only a vague staff page with the editor-in-chief being an
an independent film critic, who
is a proud member of the OFCS, in contrast, other writers of the site are self-described as enthusiasts/fans, so the site does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert WP:SPS. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 23 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! 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and I couldnt find anything that gives her credit on google. Professional harpists are usually not notable unless they have done something or created something notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete Per above nom. Comment it would seem that there are many students of Susann McDonald that have articles here at WP that shouldn't. @ HelpingWorld, perhaps you should take a look at the student section who are similar to this BLP. Maineartists ( talk) 23:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and no one has supported deleting this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
This article fails
WP:GNG It is a real place but has no signifigant coverage to deem it notable. The source is the same for all the vingtaine articles on the
Vingtaine page. If you look their, look at the sources and they are all the same. These articles had no thought put into them. IT passes
WP:GEOLAND though, since it is a vingtaine but I couldnt find anything about this vingtaine on google.
I want to withdraw from my nomintation after Curb Safe Charmer debated it and said why it is notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:NSCHOOL: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both.
This satisfies neither. The sources currently in the article do not provide
WP:SIGCOV. Searches did not find sources that satisfy
WP:GNG.
ProofRobust
22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to United States at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Shooting. There is consensus that Anderson does not meet the relevant notability criteria. There is no clear consensus to delete it as there's potential for sourcing. The history is under the redirect if sufficient sourcing comes to fruition. Star Mississippi 04:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 09:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
22:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Looking at the opinions expressed since the article was basically rewritten after the AFD nomination, I believe the concerns expressed in the nomination have been sufficiently addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Unlike Harvard-Yale football rivalry and possibly Harvard-Yale regatta rivalry, significant secondary coverage does not appear to exist for a association football rivalry between Harvard and Yale, and thus it does not meet WP:GNG. N.b., while Harvard-Yale hockey rivalry's current sourcing is dismal, additional coverage for that is readily available on Google Scholar. There's probably enough coverage for a general Harvard-Yale rivalry (currently redirects to the American football article) or Harvard-Yale sports rivalries article, but I'm not seeing enough for an article on just the soccer rivalry. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I think substantial work on this article since the nomination addresses the nominator's concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for non-elected government officials. The notability claim here is that she's "current chair of the board" of a public corporation, except that's outdated as she left that role almost 15 years ago (and even weirder, she left that role before this article was even created, meaning it was already wrong about her "current" status from day one) -- but the referencing isn't getting her over
WP:GNG for it, as it consists of one entry in a "who's who" (which has long been deprecated as not enough to carry notability all by itself) and a bunch of
primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of her own former employers.
And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't Google considering how long ago she left the Hydro One role, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, but no real GNG-building coverage about her as a subject.
There just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than I've been able to find.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
PMode is an individual software product that is listed as an entry in the greater article DOS_extender. This obscure entry lacks notability, does not cite sources, and thus contains original research. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 18:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to the primary topic,
WINS (AM).
BD2412
T
19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable news program; totally unsourced and no assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment It's not an article, it's a disambiguation page for WINS (AM) and WINS-FM. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 19:26, 22 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! 22:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. As an aside (directed at no one in particular), it's worrisome to see women's articles redirected to their husbands' article as seems to happen fairly often in AFD world. I think Merge would be better as a Redirect basically erases them and their lives. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
There is very little here to suggest she meets WP:NBIO. Most sources used are unreliable (instagram, subject's homepage, etc.). The best source I found is a half-interview with her family, including her, in Vice [3]. I am afraid that's not enough. Her nobility status is mostly WP:INHERITED, plus Romanov's are no longer a ruling dynasty anywhere so it's just old celebrity trivia. Perhaps redirecting to her husband, Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, who appears a bit more notable, makes sense. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This was declined for prod because it is not eligible having been previously deleted at AFD. The following is the prod rationale -
Spinning Spark 14:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. As the proposed redirect target is now, itself, a redirect, and no suitable alternative presents itself, I agree that this effectively defaults to delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect later if a suitable alternative target is created, however. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This does not appear to satisfy current WP:GNG grounds for inclusion. Had a look at the google results, I didn't see anywhere near the right results and considering how low down the league ladder this team is, completely fails all the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 11:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I
had closed this as redirect, which still appears valid to me, but @
Govvy: raised a
valid question on my Talk. Their points are beyond what I'm able to clear up and don't want to leave an error in place, so relisting for someone else's assessment. Thanks, Govvy for flagging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Newly discovered sources seem to establish notability (as I read this discussion). Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
My WP:BEFORE search did not uncover sources that would demonstrate notability. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Predominace of company website refs and some interviews. scope_creep Talk 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
PETAL’s primary objective is to empower women particularly Lesbian and Bisexual women by increasing their knowledge of a wide cross section of issues that impact them direct /indirectlyis exceedingly similar to
PETAL’s aim, like its name stipulates, is to empower women – particularly lesbian and bisexual women – by increasing their knowledge of a wide cross section of issues that impact them, directly or indirectlyfrom their own Facebook page, it also promotionally links to the site's email under contact details. Therefore, whether this is a completely independent source that constitutes of significant coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH is dubious IMO. Reference 2 covers the organisation in decent detail, however, it is interview-like, primarily quotes from the founder and also covering the founder's personal life and general views instead of being exclusively about the company, making WP:CORPDEPTH debatable. With only two references that at best debatably/probably not passes WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP is likely failed. I discussed with the creator to potentially merge/redirect this to somewhere as a WP:ATD, e.g., List of LGBT rights organisations in Belize, though that has been draftified as well into Draft:List of LGBT rights organisations in Belize. VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 12:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOE. The only source in the article is a dead link of a review of the film, and the film does not seem to have been widely distributed or participated in festivals, NFOE attributes. I have failed to find other independent sources about the documentary. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
References
References
Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories...per WP:GNG. The sources appear to be WP:RS; The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of record, Toronto Star, Edmonton Journal, National Post, and L'aut'journal all appear to be credible newspapers that appear to meet WP:NEWSORG and demonstrate
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the Proquest ref links to Winnipeg Free Press, a broadsheet that also appears to meet WP:NEWSORG. Moreover, Now (newspaper) is probably reliable, though I didn't locate editorial policies, only a FAQ. Nevertheless, seven reviews are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. WP:NFILM criteria 1 is debatable, though I would like to opine that critics from The Globe and Mail, a Newspaper of record, and Toronto Star, one of the highest papers per List of newspapers in Canada by circulation, count as
nationally known critics, making WP:NFILM criteria 1 likely met. WP:NFILM criteria 2 is not satisfied but that is not mandatory, given WP:GNG is definitely met and WP:NFILM criteria 1 is likely passed. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural keep. As warned, nominator has not advanced a reason for deletion in their own words, so closing this because this is time-wasting, and also, not today Larry Sanger (the devil of Wikipedia 😉)! ( non-admin closure) Nate • ( chatter) 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
We regard the wikipedia article as non-notable and we want the article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollytrinity ( talk • contribs)
The result was merge to KDE. ✗ plicit 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPRODUCT. Current references are routine filles/multimedia failing
WP:SIGCOV or non-independent sites, such as its own site and KDE Frameworks). Therefore,
WP:NPRODUCT is failed, my
WP:BEFORE found non-reliable, non-SIGCOV listicles, e.g.,
1,
2,
3. This page was deprodded due to a non-RS
site with no editorial policies an
article from a site with editorial ethics but is mostly routine instructions on how to install and uninstall, hence non-SIGCOV. The existence of self-published user forums are insufficient, along with
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
VickKiang
(talk)
10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Found references/articles:
- ubunlog.com website blog - editorial ethics page - Latinoware 2022 demonstration - youtube video review - linux mint community community reviews - that this project became part of KDE recently, its inclusion was proposed in 2019 and first version released under KDE umbrella was in 2020 - mentions in research papers/articles and books
Maxrd2 ( talk) 10:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Sole source for subject is not just from a National Biography entry from 120 years ago, but in fact the FATHER of a subject of a National Biography entry ca. 1900. Notability thus does not meet WP:ANYBIO, and anyway his actual contributions to government seem scant. JJLiu112 ( talk) 06:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I couldnt find anything that made this building notable, I couldnt even find if it was actually added to the National Register of Historic Places. It does not fail WP:GNG but it is somewhat unnotable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It does not fail WP:GNG but it is somewhat unnotableseems to be a bit of a subjective statement. If it passes GNG then what's the problem other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 22 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! 04:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Sourced to interviews, likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO. KH-1 ( talk) 05:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. No significant third party coverage. Mainly primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Athletics in Italy. More input here would have been optimal, but that hasn't particularly occurred. Redirection is a reasonable compromise in my view, relevant to the input that has occurred here. The nomination has not been countered, and despite the views of the keep !voter, independent sources that provide significant coverage have not been provided and may not be existent. The notion of redirection is in accordance with WP:ATD-R, and leaves open an option for some of the content to be selectively merged, as suggested by the opiner for redirection herein. North America 1000 09:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Just a results listing. Almost all the sources are primary from the Italian Athletics Federation. LibStar ( talk) 05:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:30, 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!
05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cyanobacteria. Star Mississippi 04:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Article is redundant to Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, riddled with advertising, and potentially misleading, as mentioned by this post to the talk page, so I'm opening up this AfD discussion. Book909 ( talk) 05:28, 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!
05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is there a proposal to Redirect this article to
Cyanobacteria?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:10, 22 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! 04:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A promotional article with only WP:LOCALCOVERAGE that does not pass WP:NCORP. –– FormalDude (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:SINGER. LibStar ( talk) 04:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was kept at AfD previously in 2010 prior to NSPORTS explicitly requiring that the GNG be met (I !voted to keep at the time). No evidence of WP:SIRS was found in 2010, and nothing has been added to the article since then or turned up in my BEFORE searches which indicate this footballer is the subject of anything but routine and trivial coverage such as match reports, database entries and the like. Jogurney ( talk) 04:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm taking action on the Keep proposals and leaving any possible Renaming to the editors here to undertake. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
this is a recreation area/resort on Lake Powell, not a settlement. It would seem nice enough if the lake level is sufficiently high, but it's not notable as such, and certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Delete, Keep and Rename options were all proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Lacks significant coverage in independent RS, likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 ( talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International Basketball League. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a basketball team that only existed for one year. Can't find anything to prove it's notability. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:20, 22 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! 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Can't find anything at all online about them; written by a near-SPA with a username related to the band's home state; don't ever appear to have been noticed outside of their home town; entirely sourced to non-RS, mostly blogs by the band members which have been completely deleted and purged, so that even the archive versions no longer exist... I think you know where we are going with this, but let's do this AfD properly. Richard3120 ( talk) 02:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
No notability, no good source, propaganda JoaquimCebuano ( talk) 01:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Neil O'Leary#2019. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Stub article on minor non-notable election. Content has been merged to Neil O'Leary already. SecretName101 ( talk) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
content has been mergedto the article on Neil O'Leary. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, we need to preserve the page history in order that proper attribution to the writers of the page nominated for deleetion can be maintained. Failure to do so would risk running afoul of the requirements at WP:C#Reusers' rights and obligations. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Only ref is self-published (school website), searching does not find in-depth independent coverage. MB 01:37, 22 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! 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Zero in-depth coverage about this term. Seems to be a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Especially since a significant portion of the piece is unsourced. Currently, over half of the references do not even mention the term. Of the remaining, none talk about it in-depth. Moved to draft in the hopes of improvement, but was contested without improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Gaming computer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The article, as an essay, is entirely original research. Provided links in footnotes are random and do not support the topic (they speak to individual hardware items in many cases). As a hobby there are people, and gamers, that build their own computers with high end components. As indicated in the article gaming computer covers the same subject in an encyclopedic way. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Article is currently supported only by primary, self-published sources (not counting citations for famous alumni) and was written in large part by editors with an apparent conflict of interest, and I was unable to find sources establishing notability. Worth mentioning:
I was unable to find anything else that could possibly establish notability. Therefore I propose deletion, though I'm mainly looking for some other editors' input here. WPscatter t/ c 08:52, 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!
10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient quality and independence. Star Mississippi 04:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable private school, doesn't meet WP:NORG. Found no useful sources in Google, Google Books, Google News. Article also appears to have a long history of COI edits from staff members. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tokyo Revengers. Since it was a split, there is not a consensus that info requires merging. However the redirect is a valid ATD and the delete !votes don't have a reason not to redirect it. Star Mississippi 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Not enough content to warrant a split from the Tokyo Revengers article. Xexerss ( talk) 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:30, 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!
20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I don't see any consensus here. It sounds like if this article kept, it still needs a lot of work done on it to get it into shape.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage is routine rather than indepth with her as the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 22:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find any coverage. Mainly primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 23:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A movie that I am not convinced passes the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. It was PRODed a few years back, but that was contested due to the one review from DVD Talk being a reliable source. However, as far as I can find, that is the only piece of coverage in reliable sources available. I tried various searches trying to find other reviews, and was unable to find any outside of that one. Rotten Tomatoes also lists zero professional reviews for their entry on the film, as well. The single piece of coverage in a reliable source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, and the writer/director is non-notable themselves, so there is no valid merge target. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
nationally known, the requirement for NFILM criteria 1. My WP:BEFORE only found this, a non-RS site without editorial policies, only a vague staff page with the editor-in-chief being an
an independent film critic, who
is a proud member of the OFCS, in contrast, other writers of the site are self-described as enthusiasts/fans, so the site does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert WP:SPS. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 23 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! 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and I couldnt find anything that gives her credit on google. Professional harpists are usually not notable unless they have done something or created something notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete Per above nom. Comment it would seem that there are many students of Susann McDonald that have articles here at WP that shouldn't. @ HelpingWorld, perhaps you should take a look at the student section who are similar to this BLP. Maineartists ( talk) 23:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and no one has supported deleting this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
This article fails
WP:GNG It is a real place but has no signifigant coverage to deem it notable. The source is the same for all the vingtaine articles on the
Vingtaine page. If you look their, look at the sources and they are all the same. These articles had no thought put into them. IT passes
WP:GEOLAND though, since it is a vingtaine but I couldnt find anything about this vingtaine on google.
I want to withdraw from my nomintation after Curb Safe Charmer debated it and said why it is notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:NSCHOOL: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both.
This satisfies neither. The sources currently in the article do not provide
WP:SIGCOV. Searches did not find sources that satisfy
WP:GNG.
ProofRobust
22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to United States at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Shooting. There is consensus that Anderson does not meet the relevant notability criteria. There is no clear consensus to delete it as there's potential for sourcing. The history is under the redirect if sufficient sourcing comes to fruition. Star Mississippi 04:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 09:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
22:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Looking at the opinions expressed since the article was basically rewritten after the AFD nomination, I believe the concerns expressed in the nomination have been sufficiently addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Unlike Harvard-Yale football rivalry and possibly Harvard-Yale regatta rivalry, significant secondary coverage does not appear to exist for a association football rivalry between Harvard and Yale, and thus it does not meet WP:GNG. N.b., while Harvard-Yale hockey rivalry's current sourcing is dismal, additional coverage for that is readily available on Google Scholar. There's probably enough coverage for a general Harvard-Yale rivalry (currently redirects to the American football article) or Harvard-Yale sports rivalries article, but I'm not seeing enough for an article on just the soccer rivalry. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I think substantial work on this article since the nomination addresses the nominator's concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for non-elected government officials. The notability claim here is that she's "current chair of the board" of a public corporation, except that's outdated as she left that role almost 15 years ago (and even weirder, she left that role before this article was even created, meaning it was already wrong about her "current" status from day one) -- but the referencing isn't getting her over
WP:GNG for it, as it consists of one entry in a "who's who" (which has long been deprecated as not enough to carry notability all by itself) and a bunch of
primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of her own former employers.
And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't Google considering how long ago she left the Hydro One role, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, but no real GNG-building coverage about her as a subject.
There just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than I've been able to find.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
PMode is an individual software product that is listed as an entry in the greater article DOS_extender. This obscure entry lacks notability, does not cite sources, and thus contains original research. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 18:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to the primary topic,
WINS (AM).
BD2412
T
19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable news program; totally unsourced and no assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment It's not an article, it's a disambiguation page for WINS (AM) and WINS-FM. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 19:26, 22 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! 22:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. As an aside (directed at no one in particular), it's worrisome to see women's articles redirected to their husbands' article as seems to happen fairly often in AFD world. I think Merge would be better as a Redirect basically erases them and their lives. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
There is very little here to suggest she meets WP:NBIO. Most sources used are unreliable (instagram, subject's homepage, etc.). The best source I found is a half-interview with her family, including her, in Vice [3]. I am afraid that's not enough. Her nobility status is mostly WP:INHERITED, plus Romanov's are no longer a ruling dynasty anywhere so it's just old celebrity trivia. Perhaps redirecting to her husband, Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, who appears a bit more notable, makes sense. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This was declined for prod because it is not eligible having been previously deleted at AFD. The following is the prod rationale -
Spinning Spark 14:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. As the proposed redirect target is now, itself, a redirect, and no suitable alternative presents itself, I agree that this effectively defaults to delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect later if a suitable alternative target is created, however. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This does not appear to satisfy current WP:GNG grounds for inclusion. Had a look at the google results, I didn't see anywhere near the right results and considering how low down the league ladder this team is, completely fails all the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 11:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I
had closed this as redirect, which still appears valid to me, but @
Govvy: raised a
valid question on my Talk. Their points are beyond what I'm able to clear up and don't want to leave an error in place, so relisting for someone else's assessment. Thanks, Govvy for flagging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Newly discovered sources seem to establish notability (as I read this discussion). Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
My WP:BEFORE search did not uncover sources that would demonstrate notability. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Predominace of company website refs and some interviews. scope_creep Talk 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
PETAL’s primary objective is to empower women particularly Lesbian and Bisexual women by increasing their knowledge of a wide cross section of issues that impact them direct /indirectlyis exceedingly similar to
PETAL’s aim, like its name stipulates, is to empower women – particularly lesbian and bisexual women – by increasing their knowledge of a wide cross section of issues that impact them, directly or indirectlyfrom their own Facebook page, it also promotionally links to the site's email under contact details. Therefore, whether this is a completely independent source that constitutes of significant coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH is dubious IMO. Reference 2 covers the organisation in decent detail, however, it is interview-like, primarily quotes from the founder and also covering the founder's personal life and general views instead of being exclusively about the company, making WP:CORPDEPTH debatable. With only two references that at best debatably/probably not passes WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP is likely failed. I discussed with the creator to potentially merge/redirect this to somewhere as a WP:ATD, e.g., List of LGBT rights organisations in Belize, though that has been draftified as well into Draft:List of LGBT rights organisations in Belize. VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 12:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOE. The only source in the article is a dead link of a review of the film, and the film does not seem to have been widely distributed or participated in festivals, NFOE attributes. I have failed to find other independent sources about the documentary. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
References
References
Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories...per WP:GNG. The sources appear to be WP:RS; The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of record, Toronto Star, Edmonton Journal, National Post, and L'aut'journal all appear to be credible newspapers that appear to meet WP:NEWSORG and demonstrate
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the Proquest ref links to Winnipeg Free Press, a broadsheet that also appears to meet WP:NEWSORG. Moreover, Now (newspaper) is probably reliable, though I didn't locate editorial policies, only a FAQ. Nevertheless, seven reviews are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. WP:NFILM criteria 1 is debatable, though I would like to opine that critics from The Globe and Mail, a Newspaper of record, and Toronto Star, one of the highest papers per List of newspapers in Canada by circulation, count as
nationally known critics, making WP:NFILM criteria 1 likely met. WP:NFILM criteria 2 is not satisfied but that is not mandatory, given WP:GNG is definitely met and WP:NFILM criteria 1 is likely passed. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural keep. As warned, nominator has not advanced a reason for deletion in their own words, so closing this because this is time-wasting, and also, not today Larry Sanger (the devil of Wikipedia 😉)! ( non-admin closure) Nate • ( chatter) 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
We regard the wikipedia article as non-notable and we want the article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollytrinity ( talk • contribs)
The result was merge to KDE. ✗ plicit 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPRODUCT. Current references are routine filles/multimedia failing
WP:SIGCOV or non-independent sites, such as its own site and KDE Frameworks). Therefore,
WP:NPRODUCT is failed, my
WP:BEFORE found non-reliable, non-SIGCOV listicles, e.g.,
1,
2,
3. This page was deprodded due to a non-RS
site with no editorial policies an
article from a site with editorial ethics but is mostly routine instructions on how to install and uninstall, hence non-SIGCOV. The existence of self-published user forums are insufficient, along with
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
VickKiang
(talk)
10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Found references/articles:
- ubunlog.com website blog - editorial ethics page - Latinoware 2022 demonstration - youtube video review - linux mint community community reviews - that this project became part of KDE recently, its inclusion was proposed in 2019 and first version released under KDE umbrella was in 2020 - mentions in research papers/articles and books
Maxrd2 ( talk) 10:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Sole source for subject is not just from a National Biography entry from 120 years ago, but in fact the FATHER of a subject of a National Biography entry ca. 1900. Notability thus does not meet WP:ANYBIO, and anyway his actual contributions to government seem scant. JJLiu112 ( talk) 06:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I couldnt find anything that made this building notable, I couldnt even find if it was actually added to the National Register of Historic Places. It does not fail WP:GNG but it is somewhat unnotable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It does not fail WP:GNG but it is somewhat unnotableseems to be a bit of a subjective statement. If it passes GNG then what's the problem other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 22 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! 04:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Sourced to interviews, likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO. KH-1 ( talk) 05:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. No significant third party coverage. Mainly primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Athletics in Italy. More input here would have been optimal, but that hasn't particularly occurred. Redirection is a reasonable compromise in my view, relevant to the input that has occurred here. The nomination has not been countered, and despite the views of the keep !voter, independent sources that provide significant coverage have not been provided and may not be existent. The notion of redirection is in accordance with WP:ATD-R, and leaves open an option for some of the content to be selectively merged, as suggested by the opiner for redirection herein. North America 1000 09:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Just a results listing. Almost all the sources are primary from the Italian Athletics Federation. LibStar ( talk) 05:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:30, 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!
05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cyanobacteria. Star Mississippi 04:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Article is redundant to Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, riddled with advertising, and potentially misleading, as mentioned by this post to the talk page, so I'm opening up this AfD discussion. Book909 ( talk) 05:28, 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!
05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is there a proposal to Redirect this article to
Cyanobacteria?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:10, 22 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! 04:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A promotional article with only WP:LOCALCOVERAGE that does not pass WP:NCORP. –– FormalDude (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:SINGER. LibStar ( talk) 04:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
04:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was kept at AfD previously in 2010 prior to NSPORTS explicitly requiring that the GNG be met (I !voted to keep at the time). No evidence of WP:SIRS was found in 2010, and nothing has been added to the article since then or turned up in my BEFORE searches which indicate this footballer is the subject of anything but routine and trivial coverage such as match reports, database entries and the like. Jogurney ( talk) 04:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm taking action on the Keep proposals and leaving any possible Renaming to the editors here to undertake. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
this is a recreation area/resort on Lake Powell, not a settlement. It would seem nice enough if the lake level is sufficiently high, but it's not notable as such, and certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Delete, Keep and Rename options were all proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Lacks significant coverage in independent RS, likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 ( talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International Basketball League. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a basketball team that only existed for one year. Can't find anything to prove it's notability. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:20, 22 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! 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Can't find anything at all online about them; written by a near-SPA with a username related to the band's home state; don't ever appear to have been noticed outside of their home town; entirely sourced to non-RS, mostly blogs by the band members which have been completely deleted and purged, so that even the archive versions no longer exist... I think you know where we are going with this, but let's do this AfD properly. Richard3120 ( talk) 02:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
No notability, no good source, propaganda JoaquimCebuano ( talk) 01:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Neil O'Leary#2019. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Stub article on minor non-notable election. Content has been merged to Neil O'Leary already. SecretName101 ( talk) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
content has been mergedto the article on Neil O'Leary. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, we need to preserve the page history in order that proper attribution to the writers of the page nominated for deleetion can be maintained. Failure to do so would risk running afoul of the requirements at WP:C#Reusers' rights and obligations. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Only ref is self-published (school website), searching does not find in-depth independent coverage. MB 01:37, 22 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! 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Zero in-depth coverage about this term. Seems to be a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Especially since a significant portion of the piece is unsourced. Currently, over half of the references do not even mention the term. Of the remaining, none talk about it in-depth. Moved to draft in the hopes of improvement, but was contested without improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Gaming computer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The article, as an essay, is entirely original research. Provided links in footnotes are random and do not support the topic (they speak to individual hardware items in many cases). As a hobby there are people, and gamers, that build their own computers with high end components. As indicated in the article gaming computer covers the same subject in an encyclopedic way. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)