The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Insignificant coverage. Lacks secondary sources (manufacturer pages.) Promotional (manufacturer and retail pages.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K#H. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Lunar crater that does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO, a search of Google Scholar brought up nothing of interest, and a general search brought up database listings and Wikipedia mirrors. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I searched through the source provided by User:Jstuby, as Hildegard wasn't named until 2016 it obviously doesn't mention the crater directly, so I searched for the neighbouring Planck instead, but even that larger and more prominent crater is not given significant coverage in the source, with only one passing mention outside of image captions. I am not sure what name Hildegard was referred to as in 1987, but I do not believe it is discussed or even mentioned. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, an interesting discussion about what would make a crater notable but we need to see more direct opinions on what to do with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Bio of subject with uncertain notability. All language wikis rely on the same two sources, one of which describes the subject as “forgotten”. Sources may exist in other languages but notability is not clear based in what I can find. Mccapra ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review new additions to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jungfrau Railway. History is under the redirect if there's anything worth merging. Star Mississippi 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Lots of press releases in the news, but very little non-routine coverage. I suggest a redirect to Jungfrau Railway. Pinging User:Onel5969, who previously redirected the article. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It is a dominating tourism and transportation company in that region. A redirect to Jungfrau Railway is not acceptable, as the Jungfraubahn Holding is not the same as the railway.-- Keimzelle ( talk) 21:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Jungfrau Railway. Surprisingly, not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 21:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
03:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NCORP. Per
WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability
. I am generally unable to find coverage of this company outside of local media; the KFOXTV sources and KVIA source come from local TV stations, while the
Las Cruces Sun-News is a small local newspaper. There are some trade journals that briefly mention this place, but per
WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability
. Because this fails
WP:NCORP, and
WP:ORGCRIT notes that NCORP establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability
than we may see in other contexts, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with
WP:DEL-REASON#8. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
20:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
22:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film actress, fails WP:NACTOR. Was nominated for deletion previously and the decision was to delete. Sources are trivial and passing mentions. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 21:34, 1 October 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. RL0919 ( talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No WP:RS via Google. The two books are self-published (The New York Literary Society, nylscares.org). ForeWord Magazine is pay for review. Created by JodiRhodes at 2010-12-12T20:57:32, the accounts only work. 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a recently published paper on the Harvard architecture. I see two main problems: the first is that the author of the article is in fact the author of the paper so we have a conflict of interest issue and the second is that this paper isn't currently notable (which is not a surprise since it was published only weeks if not days ago). Pichpich ( talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
03:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Promotional article about a non-notable person. While there are many, sources in the article, none of them are in-depth, reliable, independent coverage of the subject (most cover the company he manages, but of those, most appear to be unreliable). Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I see this organization briefly mentioned as a funder of research in various news or scholarly articles but cannot locate in-depth sources that would satisfy
WP:NORG. The only independent source cited that might have significant coverage is GuideStar Pro which I cannot access. [Edit: it doesn't, see below].
This source looks independent but actually, its author is
listed as a contact person for FAMSI. In any event, multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage are required to meet WP:NORG. (
t ·
c)
buidhe
17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deletion arguments prevail in correctly pointing out that sources provided in the article are not usable to support a claim of encyclopedic notability.
BD2412
T
22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
All the references about the subject is interview. There are no such references which is reliable and independent. No indication of notability. Samir Bishal ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
High schools don't get an automatic pass anymore. There doesn't seem to be anything that distinguishes this particular one. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting also that the nomination has been withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References are a mixture of trivial mentions and primary interview material - no indication of significant coverage on reliable, secondary sources suitable or sufficient for supporting a standalone biography. Searching for fresh sourcing doesn't turn over anything much better. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather contrived, as neither the state of Wyoming or the Wyoming Territory existed at this time. What little happened in the region militarily would be better classified as belonging to the American Indian Wars. I'm not convinced this should exist. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks well sourced but not seeing any actual independent sourcing. Everything looks to be Interviews or otherwise PR related claims by subject. No independent verification of 'millionaire status'. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO due to lack of Independent sourcing Slywriter ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is one of those rare cases where WP:NOTAVOTE earns its keep. The arguments for deletion assert that the subject is not notable as an actor, per the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and also not notable as a criminal under the relatively stringent rules of WP:CRIME. The latter explicitly precludes "contemporaneous news coverage" being the sole source of a criminal perpetrator's notability, instead requiring "historic significance ... indicated by sustained coverage". Both of these guidelines reflect well-established consensus and have been invoked numerous times in deletion discussions.
There were a few different arguments for keeping the article:
Given the imbalance in how these arguments relate to our notability guidelines, I am making the uncommon finding of a consensus for the "minority" position (in terms of who showed up to comment on this page), because the Delete arguments clearly represent the established consensus about how notability is understood for actors and (especially) criminal perpetrators. RL0919 ( talk) 00:07, 9 October 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}} . |
Per WP:CRIME, convicted criminals should be the subject of a Wikipedia article if and only if (1) the victim is a renowned national or international figure, or (2) the crime is a well-documented and historic event, as evidenced by prominent and sustained coverage. Neither is true in this case, in which a former child actor who had played only the most minor of roles made unfulfilled and unsubstantiated threats against a public figure (not notable on its own) and murdered a non-notable person. Outside of these crimes, the subject is not notable, and this news story is unlikely to have any lasting significance or persist beyond the stories already out. — Goszei ( talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Made my way from a well known "Hollywood Gossip" site as I was unfamiliar with his crime. I believe situations like mine are exactly what makes Wikipedia so useful and popular. Should not be deleted. (Christopher Thomas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.12.197 ( talk) 04:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Speaking as someone who uses Wikipedia more than they contribute, I found the page very useful. It was one of the first search results on Google and could be expanded. TheFatJamoc ( talk) 20:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be no reason to delete this page. This actor turned murderer is culturally relevant and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C80:3E10:A571:6463:E32:8EBA ( talk) 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Why would you delete this record and not delete many others such as Paul Bernardo ,John Wayne Gacey, etc perhaps one rule should apply ? Either delete all convicted killiers or don't delete any, personally myself I lean towards the delete them from history altogether , but that's just my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.115.76.105 ( talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KSAWikipedian (
talk)
15:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Violates
WP:BLPCRIME, specifically For individuals who are
not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by
§ Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
There has been no conviction for homicide, only a conviction for practising medicine without a licence. The person is not independently notable fails
WP:CRIMINAL. See also the discussion at
WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of serial killers by number of victims.
Polyamorph (
talk)
15:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyvio. Kinu t/ c 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a writer, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must show some externally validated evidence of their significance (e.g. notable literary awards, critical attention, etc.) -- but this offers nothing of the sort, and instead two of the three footnotes are of the "book circularly verifying its own existence via its own publisher or an online bookstore" variety, which is not support for notability at all, and the only one that actually comes from a media outlet is a 32-word blurb about one short story in an anthology, which isn't enough media coverage to get him over
WP:GNG all by itself.
Note also that an article about his book series was deleted by AFD last year for also not backing up its existence with any reliably sourced evidence of notability either, and the creator has directly stated on their own user talk page that they "collaborated" with the subject in writing this -- which means it's a
conflict of interest violation.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. You don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to third-party media coverage about his work as proof that it got GNG-building external attention.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NF, no independent coverage apparent, no evidence the film was released BOVINEBOY 2008 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Obviously meets WP:GNG and will not be deleted. Concerns about material in the article should be discussed on the talk page. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 18:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Troubled fashion founder that committed suicide. 64.18.11.66 ( talk) 13:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Autobiography, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rivugayen with no indication that the awards (beyond the BBC) are notable ones and not sure whether that's enough for ANYBIO. Unable to find any other indication of notability. Note, if this is deleted, Draft:Saptarshi Gayen may need to be. If it's kept, possible history merge. Star Mississippi 13:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Possibly failing WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Not a lot of notable coverage I can find, and most of it seems to indicate that its content could be adequately covered in other articles like Fighting games, or a definition in Glossary of video game terms, but I could be mistaken. For all the words in this article, it only has one citation (to an unreliable source). ~ Bluecrystal004 ( talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Played 5 minutes of professional league football then disappeared. Nothing in Google News or a Hungarian source search suggests that Csima can pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC despite trivially meeting the old NFOOTBALL guideline. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
None of the current references are acceptable for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and I was unable to find anything when searching in multiple search engines. I found one single trivial mention in Panorama but this is not even close to being sufficient. Gjeçi has spent his entire career to date in the lower divisions of Albania which might explain the lack of in-depth coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This article, which was very possibly originally written by the subject (it was created by a single-purpose account called 'Octoberrocks', which matches the name of the subject's personal website), concerns a surfer and musician. It has been the subject of a slow edit war, in which several accounts (two of which I have just CU-blocked) have been trying to remove mention of the subject's conviction for benefit fraud. The material is verifiable - aside from the two sources in the article, Google tells me that The Times also covered the case (but I can't read the whole article because of the paywall). Aside from the stuff about the conviction however, I don't think she's notable - aside from Wikipedia and mirror sites, I'm not finding any sources giving her significant coverage apart from those which are about the court case. I think WP:BLP1E applies here - she's a relatively unknown person, who shows up in news reports purely because she was convicted of a crime. Girth Summit (blether) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Graham 87 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Not notable enough for Wikipedia, no matter how laudible it may be; the fact that the article is probably mistitled is the least of its problems. I found this page because of this attempt to de-orphan it; the fact that such lengths need to be taken at all shows that it doesn't fit on the site. I can't find much in the way of secondary sources either; I could only find *one* non-trivial mention in the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, which contains articles from many major Australian newspapers/magazines from 2000 onwards, and it's a surface-level treatment of the 2010 conference by the Newcastle Herald (the newspaper of the host city) entitled ""Women's voices to be heard". The article was created by Mysteriousity, whose only other edits (20 out of 90!) are to the page Humanitarian Crisis Hub, which was speedily deleted as spam. Graham 87 10:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator, this clearly isn't going anywhere and there are enough good sources to make this article viable. Graham 87 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
05:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-pro footballer that was previously deleted via PROD for failing the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, which he only trivially meets according to Soccerway. I can't find anything significant about him when searching in Russian in conjunction with the clubs that he has been on the books of.
This was given a PROD by User:Jogurney with comment Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. which was contested procedurally. The PROD argument itself remains valid, however. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article underwent editing during the course of the discussion. The sense of the discussion overall was to keep the article, and this was particularly true of those who opined on the later versions of the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability. Certainly there are a lot of cites, but they are mainly from Billboard . Since clicking the link gives you the whole of the appropriate issue & there is no indication of a page number actually finding what has been said is difficuly: in the couple I looked at I coulnt not find anything and my bet is that it is all run of the mil coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Now Oaktree b, I can't see how with any kind of interpretation you would think that I'm "creating a promotional article to boost GSearch ratings". And then you say, " who knows, if they're even still active." Well I doubt if they are active so why would I create something like this just do do that. It wouldn't make sense! I would be willing to bet too that Peter Francey would be well into his seventies or pushing eighty and more than likely has retired! Then you say "No sources". Well there are!! Look, if I was guilty of anything it would be just furthering my current exploratory interest in Canadian rock and jazz-rock music of the 1960s and 1970s and desire to improve and expand etc.. And by editing and creating articles I learn a bit as well as take care of something that I have noticed in the last few months. And that is .... Canadian music, Canadian bands are very neglected on Wikipedia. I was surprised at how neglected they were! What partly sparked me off was the Dianne Brooks article. Even though she was born in the US, she had made such a contribution to Canadian music that she should have been given a medal. I knew of her but had no idea of the extent she was involved and the massive contribution she made. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Can't see that the page would ever be completed, as this kind of tournament does not even have a lot of current references. The page has been in this incomplete state (only 2 teams have been added out of 16), since the beginning. Anbans 586 ( talk) 09:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GoTo (US company)#Products. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. BEFORE search turned up nothing significant. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. No WP:SIGCOV available: only mentions are trivial/ WP:ROUTINE, e.g. 1-2 sentences about goals she scored, such as here and here. Uhai ( talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants this to actively work on in draft, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG; not seeing a whole lot of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Original rationale for nomination was valid, but subsequent improvements, and the coverage provided during the AfD, strongly support the argument to keep; the !votes to delete no longer carry the weight they would have done. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An article for the definition of word would be best on the wiki dictionary site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this as Delete but last minute comment by BD2412 has me wondering if there is any support for a possible article here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The larger issue is once you start deleting word definitions, thousand of other obvious words would be deleted. If you allow Wikipedia to become a dictionary, tens of thousands of words could be added. Currently WP is both dictionary, encyclopedia and fan pages. It is also missing a lot of things that actually exist, while at the same time has countless pages about things that do not exist. This is a matter much larger than spite of course. I'm aware that it is frowned upon to introduce other matters in a discussion about turning a living idea into a Dead body, but it's actually more like vaporizing something when a page is deleted. Fxmastermind ( talk) 10:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NSPORT. No independent reliable sources found in Google search. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I cannot find significant coverage of this cooperative. It is hard to find even a single reference. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Was recently undeleted after a PROD, but I see no coverage anywhere in RS's. Based on my read of her IMDB page, I'm not sure the "significant roles" of WP:NACTOR is met. Alyo ( chat· edits) 23:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep.
BD2412
T
03:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability Hazara Birar (Talk) 01:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there seems to be a consensus to Keep, there are questions about whether the sources found are substantial enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Additional sourcing resulted in a definite shift in consensus towards keeping the article despite concerns about the role of a banned editor in creating it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As noted in the article's talk page, this is a small page that was entirely written by a user that was quickly banned for admitting to being an SPA working to spread political propaganda on Wikipedia. The sources for this article are very scant, I've looked over them and they only give a single sentence in each with passing mention to the subject. All refer to one primary source. I have also already put in the work to delete blatant falsehoods and work on the article, but it doesn't look like anyone will fix it up any time soon. Given the person who wrote it and the falsehoods I've already found, I propose deleting it, and if the article's topic can be shown to be true or notable it can be rewritten. Per: WP:Dynamite Poketama ( talk) 10:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
*Weak Delete This is difficult for me, because I think this article has potential. No doubt there is some plethora of hidden knowledge in a library in Australia somewhere that can help this article, but the books there have never been put online. That being said, there was already an AFD for this article, it had a chance to be improved and there were still concerns. I think this article can be brought up to speed, there are some sources, but I think Poketama's
WP:Dynamite idea might cut the Gordian knot here. I've usefied what's there now and will try to recreate the article if I ever get any time to do so.
Royal Autumn Crest (
talk)
12:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was Move to Rowley industrial area. I have made the move. The rest can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 17:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
We're looking at two possible locations here, neither of which is notable: At the coordinates given in the article, topo maps show a place labelled Rowley at the end of a rail spur smack in the middle of a US Magnesium processing facility. The article mentions only industrial activity, nothing about a community, and there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of that to meet GNG/GEOLAND. A user-contributed entry at Ghosttowns.com seems to describe this location a few miles away, and there's a Rowley Road just across the interstate, but there's no indication that this spot was anything more than a truck stop. – dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss the move as a viable AtD. Normally that could be handled editorially, but at the moment the article would be deleted, so that's not a solution here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 31st in the world lightweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Also fails WP:GNG. The subject lacks significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 02:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Typecast (band). (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. No reliable sources from Google, GNews and News Archives.
WP:ATD is to redirect to Typecast (band). Lenticel ( talk) 02:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed through NPP, doesn't appear to be a notable artist, coverage consists of brief blurbs in local papers and I wasn't able to find any better sources or any indication of passing WP:NARTIST criteria through WP:BEFORE. Spicy ( talk) 01:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not API documentation. All the sources in the article are developer websites. A Google search only yields developer websites. Mucube ( talk) 00:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Insignificant coverage. Lacks secondary sources (manufacturer pages.) Promotional (manufacturer and retail pages.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K#H. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Lunar crater that does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO, a search of Google Scholar brought up nothing of interest, and a general search brought up database listings and Wikipedia mirrors. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I searched through the source provided by User:Jstuby, as Hildegard wasn't named until 2016 it obviously doesn't mention the crater directly, so I searched for the neighbouring Planck instead, but even that larger and more prominent crater is not given significant coverage in the source, with only one passing mention outside of image captions. I am not sure what name Hildegard was referred to as in 1987, but I do not believe it is discussed or even mentioned. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, an interesting discussion about what would make a crater notable but we need to see more direct opinions on what to do with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Bio of subject with uncertain notability. All language wikis rely on the same two sources, one of which describes the subject as “forgotten”. Sources may exist in other languages but notability is not clear based in what I can find. Mccapra ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review new additions to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jungfrau Railway. History is under the redirect if there's anything worth merging. Star Mississippi 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Lots of press releases in the news, but very little non-routine coverage. I suggest a redirect to Jungfrau Railway. Pinging User:Onel5969, who previously redirected the article. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It is a dominating tourism and transportation company in that region. A redirect to Jungfrau Railway is not acceptable, as the Jungfraubahn Holding is not the same as the railway.-- Keimzelle ( talk) 21:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Jungfrau Railway. Surprisingly, not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 21:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
03:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NCORP. Per
WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability
. I am generally unable to find coverage of this company outside of local media; the KFOXTV sources and KVIA source come from local TV stations, while the
Las Cruces Sun-News is a small local newspaper. There are some trade journals that briefly mention this place, but per
WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability
. Because this fails
WP:NCORP, and
WP:ORGCRIT notes that NCORP establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability
than we may see in other contexts, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with
WP:DEL-REASON#8. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
20:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
22:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable film actress, fails WP:NACTOR. Was nominated for deletion previously and the decision was to delete. Sources are trivial and passing mentions. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 21:34, 1 October 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. RL0919 ( talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No WP:RS via Google. The two books are self-published (The New York Literary Society, nylscares.org). ForeWord Magazine is pay for review. Created by JodiRhodes at 2010-12-12T20:57:32, the accounts only work. 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a recently published paper on the Harvard architecture. I see two main problems: the first is that the author of the article is in fact the author of the paper so we have a conflict of interest issue and the second is that this paper isn't currently notable (which is not a surprise since it was published only weeks if not days ago). Pichpich ( talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
03:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Promotional article about a non-notable person. While there are many, sources in the article, none of them are in-depth, reliable, independent coverage of the subject (most cover the company he manages, but of those, most appear to be unreliable). Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I see this organization briefly mentioned as a funder of research in various news or scholarly articles but cannot locate in-depth sources that would satisfy
WP:NORG. The only independent source cited that might have significant coverage is GuideStar Pro which I cannot access. [Edit: it doesn't, see below].
This source looks independent but actually, its author is
listed as a contact person for FAMSI. In any event, multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage are required to meet WP:NORG. (
t ·
c)
buidhe
17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deletion arguments prevail in correctly pointing out that sources provided in the article are not usable to support a claim of encyclopedic notability.
BD2412
T
22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
All the references about the subject is interview. There are no such references which is reliable and independent. No indication of notability. Samir Bishal ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
High schools don't get an automatic pass anymore. There doesn't seem to be anything that distinguishes this particular one. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting also that the nomination has been withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References are a mixture of trivial mentions and primary interview material - no indication of significant coverage on reliable, secondary sources suitable or sufficient for supporting a standalone biography. Searching for fresh sourcing doesn't turn over anything much better. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather contrived, as neither the state of Wyoming or the Wyoming Territory existed at this time. What little happened in the region militarily would be better classified as belonging to the American Indian Wars. I'm not convinced this should exist. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks well sourced but not seeing any actual independent sourcing. Everything looks to be Interviews or otherwise PR related claims by subject. No independent verification of 'millionaire status'. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO due to lack of Independent sourcing Slywriter ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is one of those rare cases where WP:NOTAVOTE earns its keep. The arguments for deletion assert that the subject is not notable as an actor, per the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and also not notable as a criminal under the relatively stringent rules of WP:CRIME. The latter explicitly precludes "contemporaneous news coverage" being the sole source of a criminal perpetrator's notability, instead requiring "historic significance ... indicated by sustained coverage". Both of these guidelines reflect well-established consensus and have been invoked numerous times in deletion discussions.
There were a few different arguments for keeping the article:
Given the imbalance in how these arguments relate to our notability guidelines, I am making the uncommon finding of a consensus for the "minority" position (in terms of who showed up to comment on this page), because the Delete arguments clearly represent the established consensus about how notability is understood for actors and (especially) criminal perpetrators. RL0919 ( talk) 00:07, 9 October 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}} . |
Per WP:CRIME, convicted criminals should be the subject of a Wikipedia article if and only if (1) the victim is a renowned national or international figure, or (2) the crime is a well-documented and historic event, as evidenced by prominent and sustained coverage. Neither is true in this case, in which a former child actor who had played only the most minor of roles made unfulfilled and unsubstantiated threats against a public figure (not notable on its own) and murdered a non-notable person. Outside of these crimes, the subject is not notable, and this news story is unlikely to have any lasting significance or persist beyond the stories already out. — Goszei ( talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Made my way from a well known "Hollywood Gossip" site as I was unfamiliar with his crime. I believe situations like mine are exactly what makes Wikipedia so useful and popular. Should not be deleted. (Christopher Thomas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.12.197 ( talk) 04:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Speaking as someone who uses Wikipedia more than they contribute, I found the page very useful. It was one of the first search results on Google and could be expanded. TheFatJamoc ( talk) 20:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be no reason to delete this page. This actor turned murderer is culturally relevant and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C80:3E10:A571:6463:E32:8EBA ( talk) 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Why would you delete this record and not delete many others such as Paul Bernardo ,John Wayne Gacey, etc perhaps one rule should apply ? Either delete all convicted killiers or don't delete any, personally myself I lean towards the delete them from history altogether , but that's just my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.115.76.105 ( talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KSAWikipedian (
talk)
15:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Violates
WP:BLPCRIME, specifically For individuals who are
not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by
§ Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
There has been no conviction for homicide, only a conviction for practising medicine without a licence. The person is not independently notable fails
WP:CRIMINAL. See also the discussion at
WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of serial killers by number of victims.
Polyamorph (
talk)
15:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyvio. Kinu t/ c 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a writer, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must show some externally validated evidence of their significance (e.g. notable literary awards, critical attention, etc.) -- but this offers nothing of the sort, and instead two of the three footnotes are of the "book circularly verifying its own existence via its own publisher or an online bookstore" variety, which is not support for notability at all, and the only one that actually comes from a media outlet is a 32-word blurb about one short story in an anthology, which isn't enough media coverage to get him over
WP:GNG all by itself.
Note also that an article about his book series was deleted by AFD last year for also not backing up its existence with any reliably sourced evidence of notability either, and the creator has directly stated on their own user talk page that they "collaborated" with the subject in writing this -- which means it's a
conflict of interest violation.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. You don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to third-party media coverage about his work as proof that it got GNG-building external attention.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NF, no independent coverage apparent, no evidence the film was released BOVINEBOY 2008 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Obviously meets WP:GNG and will not be deleted. Concerns about material in the article should be discussed on the talk page. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 18:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Troubled fashion founder that committed suicide. 64.18.11.66 ( talk) 13:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Autobiography, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rivugayen with no indication that the awards (beyond the BBC) are notable ones and not sure whether that's enough for ANYBIO. Unable to find any other indication of notability. Note, if this is deleted, Draft:Saptarshi Gayen may need to be. If it's kept, possible history merge. Star Mississippi 13:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Possibly failing WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Not a lot of notable coverage I can find, and most of it seems to indicate that its content could be adequately covered in other articles like Fighting games, or a definition in Glossary of video game terms, but I could be mistaken. For all the words in this article, it only has one citation (to an unreliable source). ~ Bluecrystal004 ( talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Played 5 minutes of professional league football then disappeared. Nothing in Google News or a Hungarian source search suggests that Csima can pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC despite trivially meeting the old NFOOTBALL guideline. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
None of the current references are acceptable for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and I was unable to find anything when searching in multiple search engines. I found one single trivial mention in Panorama but this is not even close to being sufficient. Gjeçi has spent his entire career to date in the lower divisions of Albania which might explain the lack of in-depth coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This article, which was very possibly originally written by the subject (it was created by a single-purpose account called 'Octoberrocks', which matches the name of the subject's personal website), concerns a surfer and musician. It has been the subject of a slow edit war, in which several accounts (two of which I have just CU-blocked) have been trying to remove mention of the subject's conviction for benefit fraud. The material is verifiable - aside from the two sources in the article, Google tells me that The Times also covered the case (but I can't read the whole article because of the paywall). Aside from the stuff about the conviction however, I don't think she's notable - aside from Wikipedia and mirror sites, I'm not finding any sources giving her significant coverage apart from those which are about the court case. I think WP:BLP1E applies here - she's a relatively unknown person, who shows up in news reports purely because she was convicted of a crime. Girth Summit (blether) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Graham 87 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Not notable enough for Wikipedia, no matter how laudible it may be; the fact that the article is probably mistitled is the least of its problems. I found this page because of this attempt to de-orphan it; the fact that such lengths need to be taken at all shows that it doesn't fit on the site. I can't find much in the way of secondary sources either; I could only find *one* non-trivial mention in the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, which contains articles from many major Australian newspapers/magazines from 2000 onwards, and it's a surface-level treatment of the 2010 conference by the Newcastle Herald (the newspaper of the host city) entitled ""Women's voices to be heard". The article was created by Mysteriousity, whose only other edits (20 out of 90!) are to the page Humanitarian Crisis Hub, which was speedily deleted as spam. Graham 87 10:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator, this clearly isn't going anywhere and there are enough good sources to make this article viable. Graham 87 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
05:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-pro footballer that was previously deleted via PROD for failing the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, which he only trivially meets according to Soccerway. I can't find anything significant about him when searching in Russian in conjunction with the clubs that he has been on the books of.
This was given a PROD by User:Jogurney with comment Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. which was contested procedurally. The PROD argument itself remains valid, however. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article underwent editing during the course of the discussion. The sense of the discussion overall was to keep the article, and this was particularly true of those who opined on the later versions of the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability. Certainly there are a lot of cites, but they are mainly from Billboard . Since clicking the link gives you the whole of the appropriate issue & there is no indication of a page number actually finding what has been said is difficuly: in the couple I looked at I coulnt not find anything and my bet is that it is all run of the mil coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Now Oaktree b, I can't see how with any kind of interpretation you would think that I'm "creating a promotional article to boost GSearch ratings". And then you say, " who knows, if they're even still active." Well I doubt if they are active so why would I create something like this just do do that. It wouldn't make sense! I would be willing to bet too that Peter Francey would be well into his seventies or pushing eighty and more than likely has retired! Then you say "No sources". Well there are!! Look, if I was guilty of anything it would be just furthering my current exploratory interest in Canadian rock and jazz-rock music of the 1960s and 1970s and desire to improve and expand etc.. And by editing and creating articles I learn a bit as well as take care of something that I have noticed in the last few months. And that is .... Canadian music, Canadian bands are very neglected on Wikipedia. I was surprised at how neglected they were! What partly sparked me off was the Dianne Brooks article. Even though she was born in the US, she had made such a contribution to Canadian music that she should have been given a medal. I knew of her but had no idea of the extent she was involved and the massive contribution she made. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Can't see that the page would ever be completed, as this kind of tournament does not even have a lot of current references. The page has been in this incomplete state (only 2 teams have been added out of 16), since the beginning. Anbans 586 ( talk) 09:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to GoTo (US company)#Products. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. BEFORE search turned up nothing significant. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. No WP:SIGCOV available: only mentions are trivial/ WP:ROUTINE, e.g. 1-2 sentences about goals she scored, such as here and here. Uhai ( talk · contribs) 05:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants this to actively work on in draft, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG; not seeing a whole lot of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Original rationale for nomination was valid, but subsequent improvements, and the coverage provided during the AfD, strongly support the argument to keep; the !votes to delete no longer carry the weight they would have done. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An article for the definition of word would be best on the wiki dictionary site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this as Delete but last minute comment by BD2412 has me wondering if there is any support for a possible article here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The larger issue is once you start deleting word definitions, thousand of other obvious words would be deleted. If you allow Wikipedia to become a dictionary, tens of thousands of words could be added. Currently WP is both dictionary, encyclopedia and fan pages. It is also missing a lot of things that actually exist, while at the same time has countless pages about things that do not exist. This is a matter much larger than spite of course. I'm aware that it is frowned upon to introduce other matters in a discussion about turning a living idea into a Dead body, but it's actually more like vaporizing something when a page is deleted. Fxmastermind ( talk) 10:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NSPORT. No independent reliable sources found in Google search. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I cannot find significant coverage of this cooperative. It is hard to find even a single reference. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Was recently undeleted after a PROD, but I see no coverage anywhere in RS's. Based on my read of her IMDB page, I'm not sure the "significant roles" of WP:NACTOR is met. Alyo ( chat· edits) 23:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep.
BD2412
T
03:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability Hazara Birar (Talk) 01:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there seems to be a consensus to Keep, there are questions about whether the sources found are substantial enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Additional sourcing resulted in a definite shift in consensus towards keeping the article despite concerns about the role of a banned editor in creating it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As noted in the article's talk page, this is a small page that was entirely written by a user that was quickly banned for admitting to being an SPA working to spread political propaganda on Wikipedia. The sources for this article are very scant, I've looked over them and they only give a single sentence in each with passing mention to the subject. All refer to one primary source. I have also already put in the work to delete blatant falsehoods and work on the article, but it doesn't look like anyone will fix it up any time soon. Given the person who wrote it and the falsehoods I've already found, I propose deleting it, and if the article's topic can be shown to be true or notable it can be rewritten. Per: WP:Dynamite Poketama ( talk) 10:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
*Weak Delete This is difficult for me, because I think this article has potential. No doubt there is some plethora of hidden knowledge in a library in Australia somewhere that can help this article, but the books there have never been put online. That being said, there was already an AFD for this article, it had a chance to be improved and there were still concerns. I think this article can be brought up to speed, there are some sources, but I think Poketama's
WP:Dynamite idea might cut the Gordian knot here. I've usefied what's there now and will try to recreate the article if I ever get any time to do so.
Royal Autumn Crest (
talk)
12:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was Move to Rowley industrial area. I have made the move. The rest can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 17:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
We're looking at two possible locations here, neither of which is notable: At the coordinates given in the article, topo maps show a place labelled Rowley at the end of a rail spur smack in the middle of a US Magnesium processing facility. The article mentions only industrial activity, nothing about a community, and there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of that to meet GNG/GEOLAND. A user-contributed entry at Ghosttowns.com seems to describe this location a few miles away, and there's a Rowley Road just across the interstate, but there's no indication that this spot was anything more than a truck stop. – dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss the move as a viable AtD. Normally that could be handled editorially, but at the moment the article would be deleted, so that's not a solution here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 31st in the world lightweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Also fails WP:GNG. The subject lacks significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 02:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Typecast (band). (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. No reliable sources from Google, GNews and News Archives.
WP:ATD is to redirect to Typecast (band). Lenticel ( talk) 02:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed through NPP, doesn't appear to be a notable artist, coverage consists of brief blurbs in local papers and I wasn't able to find any better sources or any indication of passing WP:NARTIST criteria through WP:BEFORE. Spicy ( talk) 01:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not API documentation. All the sources in the article are developer websites. A Google search only yields developer websites. Mucube ( talk) 00:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)