![]() |
The result was keep. Thank you MB for adding more entries to the page. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to salvage the page by adding an entry, but it seems that, considering HBD is the primary topic and Human biodiversity is a disambiguation page (therefore a see also entry), there would only be one entry, giving no need for the page. However, I might've not searched deep enough and there may be other topics on Wikipedia abbreviated as HBD. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a notable enterprise. Little coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:50, 18 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. ✗ plicit 12:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at the highest level, only represented under 22 team. LibStar ( talk) 23:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy, and should not have a user generated reference such as Facebook, which belongs to the high school, so not an appropriate official link. -- Otr500 ( talk) 06:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
doesnt meet notability Nswix ( talk) 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Insight 3 ( talk) 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia, HeinzMaster, RafaelHP, Gsfelipe94, and Sdpdude9:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keeps are Weak Keeps. Editors are looking for confirmation that the subject did win championships.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was merge to WFLD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable program. Sources are all just youtube clips from WFLD. It's not mentioned on the WFLD page, so redirect isn't useful either. Alyo ( chat· edits) 19:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Merge to the WFLD tv station that aired it, with a few sentences, seems the best option. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORG. Article only summarizes the company's activities without describing its significance or influence. I could not find more substantive coverage; has been tagged since July 2018 as potentially not notable. 331dot ( talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Intact America. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. A previous redirect attempt was overturned with the claim "passes WP:NOTABILITY" but the article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. The sole non-primary source is just about circumcision generally and doesn't mention this advocacy group at all. Aside from a few passing references in books and a couple op-eds by people affiliated with the group, I cannot find sustained coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
See also the organization Genital Autonomy America", which does just about nothing for notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
GenoV84 ( talk) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)There are implications here for issues related to penis circumcision such as female genital cutting or mutilation (see also chapter 21) and surgeries on the genitals of babies born with intersex conditions of differences in sex development. Advocates against these procedures use umbrella terms such as genital autonomy and genital integrity. These procedures raise complex issues of consent, medical justification, parenting responsibilities, religious and cultural context, and human rights. For one such discussion of intersex issues, see the United Nations Awareness campaign Free and Equal. See also the organization Genital Autonomy America.
organization that promotes body positivity and genital integrity, and belongs to the sex-positive movement.The only thing it says about GAA is (to paraphrase) "If you're interested in learning more about this, there's a website in the endnote that might have more information." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 20:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet, and sock-puppetry has derailed the conversation. No prejudice against renomination by an editor in good standing. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 00:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This page doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lillyshang (
talk •
contribs) 11:45, October 11, 2022 (UTC)(sock strike
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC))
Blocked socks, see
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lillyshang.
Spicy (
talk)
15:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Just as in the AfD for Nedumpally, this is a family with only one instance of mention in a historic legend. There is no reason to believe they deserve a paper under WP:NOPAGE. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:57, 11 October 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, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I have not previously seen anyone use the MOS to argue for notability. If we as a community have decided to grant inherent notability to the city councilors of six Canadian cities, that ought to be a notability guideline, and should be clarified at the applicable notability guideline, which is NPOL. However, I'm not comfortable entirely setting aside the guideline as written, even if it currently represents an end-run around the notability guidelines. This discussion is unlikely to reach a policy-based consensus when policy is self-contradictory, and so I'm closing it as no consensus, explicitly without prejudice to future nominations, though it is probably worth sorting out the status of the MOS before doing anything further. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a city councillor, not
properly sourced as the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass
WP:NPOL #2. While Toronto is a large and important enough city that its city councillors are often considered notable enough, "often" is not the same thing as "always". It's not considered an "inherently" notable role where a person automatically gets to have an article as soon as you provide basic verification that she holds it, but a conditionally notable role where the inclusion test hinges on writing and sourcing some genuine substance about her work in the role: specific things she did in the job, specific effects her work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
The problem, however, is that Ms. Buxton Potts was appointed to council earlier this year to fill a vacancy only until the
2022 Toronto municipal election in a couple of weeks, and the council had its last official meeting of the entire term in July (just a few weeks after her appointment) and has essentially been in "caretaker" mode ever since, so RBP just hasn't had any substantive coverage of any specific accomplishments in the office.
The only
WP:GNG-worthy source here is the same-day coverage of her initial appointment to the seat itself -- otherwise, all of the other footnotes here are primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the city's own
self-published certificate of her appointment and unreliable
blogs. I wish there were more sourcing than there is, because she's my city councillor, but the sourcing just isn't there and I've tried to look for better.
She simply hasn't had the correct type or depth of coverage necessary to establish permanent notability yet. If she wins the different seat she's running for next week, then that obviously might change in the future, so obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when her political career can be sourced better than this, but she just doesn't clear the bar as things stand right now. Just being appointed to Toronto City Council is not automatically enough in and of itself, if GNG-building coverage about her work on city council is lacking.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:41, 11 October 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, 18 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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely entirely on PR and company announcements. HighKing ++ 14:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a pr platform or vanity publisher. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:28, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mucus. (glad I already had my lunch). Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't need this article. We have the articles on mucus and eating mucus and this article basically just copies them. This should be deleted and redirected to mucus. Marsbar8 ( talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a language, but is in an ethnic group/people? I cannot verify any reliable source that says so. The article relies largely on peoplegroups.org which is a Christian missionary site (non-RS) and ethnologue which covers that it is a language. No significant coverage of the alleged ethnic group/people found. ( t · c) buidhe 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Most of the article is based on primary sources. The person lacks notability. I couldn't find much in reliable sources. Human rights work and controversies section reads like a news report and doesn't feel encyclopedic. Akshaypatill ( talk) 18:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted after an AfD discussion a year ago, and the exact same concerns apply to this version of the article. There is no apparent notability per WP:FILMMAKER and none at all per WP:GNG. I have gone through all sources and not a single one is independent (they are all "sponsored content" or press releases). Before my weeding duplicate sources out, there were multiple copies of five different PR/sponsored sources – one of them was used six times! bonadea contributions talk 18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Promotion for non notable photographer. Getting your photo published in a daily newspaper does not make you notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Herald Sun has no depth of coverage. Has a little bit of indiscriminate local puff but that's not enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
18:33, 18 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. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Company article sourced to routine notices of funding and acquisitions, plus some WP:UGC review sites [12], blogs [13] and an article by the company owner [14]. No better sourcing found through WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:NCORP sourcing requirements. Spicy ( talk) 18:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mirzaganj Upazila. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I declined A7 speedy deletion as the criteria doesn't apply to buildings. The article has already been sent to draft space, but the creator simply moved it back to article space again without improving it or adding any sources, so here we are. There is zero notability asserted and I don't see how this meets WP:NBUILD. Ponyo bons mots 17:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ring of Fire (band). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet any notability standards. Redirect to Ring of Fire (band). QuietHere ( talk) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. PR sources etc. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Second nomination, deleted per first nomination. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 15:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus that notability criteria satisfied under AUTHOR or PROF. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 19:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability due to WP:NPROF is marginal at best (the college the subject is the president of does not seem to be particularly "major academic institution" as required by WP:NACADEMIC#6), which combined with the fact that this is ultimately a poorly-sourced BLP which may otherwise have not met WP:BASIC (I was unable to find anything more than passing mentions or articles written by the subject) makes for a case for deletion. I would appreciate if additional sources that I cannot access can be found, but as things stand there are few, if any, reasons to have this article. Java Hurricane 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is clear consensus that there is notability here. There isn't clear consensus about keeping it at the present title or moving it to an article about his death, and this discussion does not preclude either option. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Extent of notability unclear. Not to mudsling the dead, but how was Kerpatenko encyclopedically notable as a musician?
Did being the principal conductor of the Kherson Regional Philharmonic's chamber orchestra and the Mykola Kulish Music and Drama Theatre make him a notable conductor/orchestrator as per WP:MUSICBIO?
Do we have any ample coverage from before 13 October 2022? I can't seem to find anything significant. Perhaps a Ukrainian speaker could take a look at any Ukrainian sources. Mooonswimmer 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion it will be a grave mistake to delete this entry. He may have not been an important musician before the Russian-Ukrainian war but his name is now known all over the world and his (alleged) murder has become a subject for protest and rage all over the world. The cruelty of the deed will very probably make him a symbol of the war and this has encyclopedic importance in my opinion. Rnaveh ( talk) 10:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Mostly one-off appearances or very minor roles. The "recurring role" in Big Bang Theory is actually 3 appearances. 7 appearances as "receptionist" likely doesn't qualify as significant. Nominations at non-notable film festivals don't really get one past the notability bar. Also, let's not forget the NACTOR standard is "multiple", not just a role. Most likely still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Reverie (video game). Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a non-notable track that does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article besides its peak position in the French charts (which was quite high) that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable track, does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article besides its peak position in the French charts that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English, Russian and Belarussian-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable track, does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article (besides the charts position) that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable businesswoman. Being a published author does not make you a notable one. Couldn't find any ample coverage in reliable sources. - Mooonswimmer 14:02, 18 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. ✗ plicit 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources; ANYBIO applies here so delete per this rule Benedikt Gerendeg ( talk) 14:00, 18 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. ✗ plicit 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
THere are a number of schools with this name, which makes search results confusing. However I can't find even an assertion of notability for this school even from their own site nor is there any coverage to indicate otherwise. Star Mississippi 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass the general notability guideline or subject notability guideline for academics. All provided sources are routine coverage of exactly the same event, with nothing more substantial found in a WP:BEFORE search. The strongest claim to notability is provost of a not-so-well-known institution – the institution not being widely known is what casts doubt on NPROF being satisfied. Similarly, for his memberships, I don't believe simply being a member of, e.g., the Nigerian Institute of Management is enough by itself. This article was already draftified and moved back to mainspace (not an accepted AfC submission) with some improvement, though not enough to demonstrate notability. Complex/ Rational 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.”, at this juncture, I am leaning delete. Pinging Idoghor Melody for his input. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 11:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Wikt:crank. While it is true that AfD is not for cleanup, if none of the content in an article is viable, removing it has clear basis in policy. As such this discussion does not preclude a future article on cranks or crankery if built on sources discussing the topic as a whole, but the argument to redirect to the dictionary entry has clear consensus here. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has several major issues:
1) Scope: The opening sentence implies that the article is about the term crank, not the people to whom the term is applied, but in fact the term only gets a very brief treatment in the "Etymology" section – the remainder of that section deals with the etymology of crackpot and kook, and the rest of the article discusses characteristics of "cranky" beliefs.
2) NPOV: The article begins by telling us that "crank is a pejorative term", and then proceeds to continually use the term as a label, with such statements as "Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal".
3) Sourcing: The majority of the article is unsourced, and the sources that are present do not all provide verification. (For example, footnote 6, "An Editor Recalls Some Hopeless Papers", is a review of a particular set of mathematics papers, whose authors are not referred to as cranks, which is used as a source for the sweeping statement that "cranks tend to ignore any previous insights" etc.) The most heavily sourced section is "Crank magnetism", but half the sources in this section are blogs and dead links, and the other half don't contain the phrase "crank magnetism" (or even "crank").
There may be a notable topic here – either the term crank, or the concept of "crankery", or both – but I don't believe there is any content in the current article worth preserving. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 18:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Please return, it is too valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZelos ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The arguments to keep (or "leave") are not based in policy, and it's fairly evident that some form of canvassing or meat-puppetry is going on. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
There is not enough sources to show notability beside owning one stadium. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 10:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. Imho it's not a case about "Company pays money for naming rights". Coverage of the deal will come. I mentioned it above. All the points mentioned under "delete" are not the points to delete the article. There a lot of wiki-articles that have to be improved. The solution could be to leave the article, but provide it some templates like "the part of the article has to be improved", and so on. Web-wiki-warrior ( talk) 19:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. The company (Allrise Capital) is not a big one, but beside of sponsorship of FC Chornomorets and ownership of their stadium they are a venture capital provider, for example for " Automation Anywhere". There is source about the deal in the article. Guard123 ( talk) 09:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. There's no problems if we talk about issues like WP:PROMOTIONAL, WP:CORP and so on. Prego-ogerp ( talk) 09:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. Instead of deleting, you can use the following templates in this case:![]() | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. |
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
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! 09:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Blatant advertising. Primary sources such as repackaged press releases comprise the majority of the page's sources. The FT article might be secondary and might contain some significant coverage but one source is not multiple sources The Bicycle of Dreams ( talk) 09:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a content fork of 2022 in the United States. Its creation was briefly discussed at Talk:2022 in the United States#Idea: Minor United States events in 2022 and I do understand the thinking behind it (basically to trim the very long main list), but the result in my view is an undesirable fork that contradicts the principles that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and is not news. If an event is too "minor" to include in the main list, it is not worth listing anywhere. Furthermore, any inclusion criteria for this list would require editors to do original research, since there are no sources that categorise current events into "minor" and "major" for us.
Usually when we have overlong lists we split them by sections, e.g. into 2022 in the United States (Jan–Jun) and 2022 in the United States (Jul–Dec), not by significance. We have thousands of "events in year"-type lists, so I think it would be a good idea to reach a wider consensus on whether this new subtype is desirable, before a significant precedent is set. – Joe ( talk) 09:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Anarchist Greek rock group, refused to sell any records. You start to see where my notability argument's going here already, right? "They followed a strictly anti-commercial tactic, never accepting promotion from mass media." Which is laudable, but sort of does for your AfD chances... Article sourced to blogs, no media coverage. No awards, no significant impact, no gold disks, no chart placements. Nothing but nihilism. Fails WP:MUSICBIO; WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:08, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No sources, and I cannot find enough even to establish notability. History suggests that much of what exists was original research by a member of the organization. Brian ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Not responding WP:NCORP as there are mainly press releases, gambling spam websites references, one interview, and other suspicious sources. Mambo Rumbo ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Remove per WP:NCORP - even not one reliable source found. Mambo Rumbo ( talk) 07:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Highly suspicious subject not meeting WP:NCORP with bad non reliable sources. Mambo Rumbo ( talk) 07:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Few reliable sources in the article, nothing found via WP:BEFORE. No good redirect target. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I wish there was more participation from some of our eagle-eye AFD participants but the consensus here is that coverage of this subject passes GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Excessively relies on references to molossia.org. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 06:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Pima County, Arizona - Does not meet GEOLAND as there is no evidence of legal recognition or significant coverage, however I did find one article which mentions an archaeological site. Since we don't have sourcing that could be used to support the "populated place" description or write anything about this location beyond a stub, a redirect makes the most sense. – dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. Too many articles of this kind, oh my God! ~ Pog ing Juan 05:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Districts of the British Virgin Islands#Electoral districts. Redirected as I see no articles for other BVI electoral districts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Another microstub entry: but all of the other "Nth electoral district, BVI" articles have been deleted already. See: User:Shevonsilva#Electoral_Districts_(British_Virgin_Islands) Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 05:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; mostly database mentions and advertisements are what I can find online. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 05:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; mostly database mentions are what I can find online. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 04:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1976 Winter Olympics – Four-man. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Highest rank was 11 in the 1976 Olympics and there doesn't seem to be enough reliable sources to be notable. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 04:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete and salt. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Persistent COI/UPE, has been deleted and draftified time and again and constantly recreated/yanked back into mainspace. It's been G11'd twice (it would have been three times, but mine was denied) and for good reason. A raft of references all of which are dubious/suspect/passing/primary are provided to attest to the brilliance of this "inventor, scientist and engineer, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) promoter, as well as a social activist." - subject is still at school. Enough is enough. Delete and SALT for the love of Mike... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 02:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Listed sources do not have significant coverage and thus fails WP:NGO. They are mostly more about the founder Jeff Campbell than the organization it self. 0x Deadbeef 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to
previous AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
03:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:39, 11 October 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!
04:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Closing as Delete because after 2, not 3, relists, there is no one advocating to Keep this article. Ordinarily, I'd close as Soft Delete but that is not possible here so Delete it is. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, this game from Deep-Sea Prisoner (the same person who made Mogeko Castle) does not meet WP:GNG. I have seen nothing from the reliable sources search engine that provides coverage or reviews. Oddly enough, the manga adaptation has a bit more coverage than the game itself (small blurbs from Crunchyroll, Anime News Network), but I don't think that will make the manga notable as well. Sparkl talk 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This article suffers the same problems as the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination) - it's a mass of often-outdated technical detail with too little context. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 18 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. ✗ plicit 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Exactly as described in the placenames book: a rail stop, not a settlement. GHits were clickbait and GBooks only came up with a variety of surname references having nothing to do with this spot. Mangoe ( talk) 02:07, 18 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. ✗ plicit 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The award doesn't appear to means he passes WP:ANYBIO "Gray was named one of...The annual list is compiled by broadcasting trade publication Radio Ink, which accepts nominations for outstanding contributions to the promotion of the African American radio industry." and I can find no other evidence of coverage to make this businessman notable. Star Mississippi 01:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bing Crosby discography. ✗ plicit 03:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Allmusic reference confirms the album exists but not that it is notable. The article's previous PROD notice was removed so a soft delete is not possible. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Allmusic reference confirms the album exists but not that it is notable. The article's previous PROD notice was removed so a soft delete is not possible. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The highest office that he got is winning the municipal election, and in my opinion that has not satisfy the requirement of WP:NPOL yet. He lost the general election and the regional election. There is nothing in the article that showed that he is notable otherwise. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. The other years don't have articles. SL93 ( talk) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure). --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The artist page itself
Giant Claw is questionable on notability (I'll be checking that in a bit), but this album from said artist does not meet
WP:MUSIC notability at all. It's got a tiny bit of media mention, but it's entirely inherited from the artist itself and just isn't notable enough in it's own right. The vast majority of citations in the article are meaningless or circular. It's written to make it look more important than it is. --
Tautomers(
T
C)
00:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I can't find much of anything from newspapers.com, google books, the internet archive, or any other source that might turn something up on an American journalist and activist. It does pain me to delete an article about a claudia, so I'd be somewhat happy to be proven wrong. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bernstein 2021 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Meyer | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
AP 1986 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Robertson 2004 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was redirect to Death's Dynamic Shroud. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't poke AfD anymore. However, I just undid a hasty redirect for the band page for Death's Dynamic Shroud as it does meet notability guidelines, and in the process found an album page of the band that definitely does not meet guidelines. So out of completeness I am putting this one up. It has no major or significant media coverage on it's own and is no where near close to standard for WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG as a whole. The article is basically just cited with youtube twitter and insignificant links, and a search reveals there is nothing notable. Further, more recent releases by the band have media coverage of their own but don't have enough to have stand alone album pages, so this one absolutely doesn't meet it -- Tautomers( T C) 00:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Thank you MB for adding more entries to the page. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to salvage the page by adding an entry, but it seems that, considering HBD is the primary topic and Human biodiversity is a disambiguation page (therefore a see also entry), there would only be one entry, giving no need for the page. However, I might've not searched deep enough and there may be other topics on Wikipedia abbreviated as HBD. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a notable enterprise. Little coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:50, 18 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. ✗ plicit 12:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at the highest level, only represented under 22 team. LibStar ( talk) 23:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy, and should not have a user generated reference such as Facebook, which belongs to the high school, so not an appropriate official link. -- Otr500 ( talk) 06:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
doesnt meet notability Nswix ( talk) 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Insight 3 ( talk) 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia, HeinzMaster, RafaelHP, Gsfelipe94, and Sdpdude9:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keeps are Weak Keeps. Editors are looking for confirmation that the subject did win championships.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was merge to WFLD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable program. Sources are all just youtube clips from WFLD. It's not mentioned on the WFLD page, so redirect isn't useful either. Alyo ( chat· edits) 19:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Merge to the WFLD tv station that aired it, with a few sentences, seems the best option. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORG. Article only summarizes the company's activities without describing its significance or influence. I could not find more substantive coverage; has been tagged since July 2018 as potentially not notable. 331dot ( talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Intact America. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. A previous redirect attempt was overturned with the claim "passes WP:NOTABILITY" but the article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. The sole non-primary source is just about circumcision generally and doesn't mention this advocacy group at all. Aside from a few passing references in books and a couple op-eds by people affiliated with the group, I cannot find sustained coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
See also the organization Genital Autonomy America", which does just about nothing for notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
GenoV84 ( talk) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)There are implications here for issues related to penis circumcision such as female genital cutting or mutilation (see also chapter 21) and surgeries on the genitals of babies born with intersex conditions of differences in sex development. Advocates against these procedures use umbrella terms such as genital autonomy and genital integrity. These procedures raise complex issues of consent, medical justification, parenting responsibilities, religious and cultural context, and human rights. For one such discussion of intersex issues, see the United Nations Awareness campaign Free and Equal. See also the organization Genital Autonomy America.
organization that promotes body positivity and genital integrity, and belongs to the sex-positive movement.The only thing it says about GAA is (to paraphrase) "If you're interested in learning more about this, there's a website in the endnote that might have more information." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 20:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet, and sock-puppetry has derailed the conversation. No prejudice against renomination by an editor in good standing. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 00:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This page doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lillyshang (
talk •
contribs) 11:45, October 11, 2022 (UTC)(sock strike
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC))
Blocked socks, see
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lillyshang.
Spicy (
talk)
15:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Just as in the AfD for Nedumpally, this is a family with only one instance of mention in a historic legend. There is no reason to believe they deserve a paper under WP:NOPAGE. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:57, 11 October 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, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I have not previously seen anyone use the MOS to argue for notability. If we as a community have decided to grant inherent notability to the city councilors of six Canadian cities, that ought to be a notability guideline, and should be clarified at the applicable notability guideline, which is NPOL. However, I'm not comfortable entirely setting aside the guideline as written, even if it currently represents an end-run around the notability guidelines. This discussion is unlikely to reach a policy-based consensus when policy is self-contradictory, and so I'm closing it as no consensus, explicitly without prejudice to future nominations, though it is probably worth sorting out the status of the MOS before doing anything further. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a city councillor, not
properly sourced as the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass
WP:NPOL #2. While Toronto is a large and important enough city that its city councillors are often considered notable enough, "often" is not the same thing as "always". It's not considered an "inherently" notable role where a person automatically gets to have an article as soon as you provide basic verification that she holds it, but a conditionally notable role where the inclusion test hinges on writing and sourcing some genuine substance about her work in the role: specific things she did in the job, specific effects her work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
The problem, however, is that Ms. Buxton Potts was appointed to council earlier this year to fill a vacancy only until the
2022 Toronto municipal election in a couple of weeks, and the council had its last official meeting of the entire term in July (just a few weeks after her appointment) and has essentially been in "caretaker" mode ever since, so RBP just hasn't had any substantive coverage of any specific accomplishments in the office.
The only
WP:GNG-worthy source here is the same-day coverage of her initial appointment to the seat itself -- otherwise, all of the other footnotes here are primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the city's own
self-published certificate of her appointment and unreliable
blogs. I wish there were more sourcing than there is, because she's my city councillor, but the sourcing just isn't there and I've tried to look for better.
She simply hasn't had the correct type or depth of coverage necessary to establish permanent notability yet. If she wins the different seat she's running for next week, then that obviously might change in the future, so obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when her political career can be sourced better than this, but she just doesn't clear the bar as things stand right now. Just being appointed to Toronto City Council is not automatically enough in and of itself, if GNG-building coverage about her work on city council is lacking.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:41, 11 October 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, 18 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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely entirely on PR and company announcements. HighKing ++ 14:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a pr platform or vanity publisher. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:28, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mucus. (glad I already had my lunch). Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't need this article. We have the articles on mucus and eating mucus and this article basically just copies them. This should be deleted and redirected to mucus. Marsbar8 ( talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a language, but is in an ethnic group/people? I cannot verify any reliable source that says so. The article relies largely on peoplegroups.org which is a Christian missionary site (non-RS) and ethnologue which covers that it is a language. No significant coverage of the alleged ethnic group/people found. ( t · c) buidhe 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was keep. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Most of the article is based on primary sources. The person lacks notability. I couldn't find much in reliable sources. Human rights work and controversies section reads like a news report and doesn't feel encyclopedic. Akshaypatill ( talk) 18:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted after an AfD discussion a year ago, and the exact same concerns apply to this version of the article. There is no apparent notability per WP:FILMMAKER and none at all per WP:GNG. I have gone through all sources and not a single one is independent (they are all "sponsored content" or press releases). Before my weeding duplicate sources out, there were multiple copies of five different PR/sponsored sources – one of them was used six times! bonadea contributions talk 18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Promotion for non notable photographer. Getting your photo published in a daily newspaper does not make you notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Herald Sun has no depth of coverage. Has a little bit of indiscriminate local puff but that's not enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
18:33, 18 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. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Company article sourced to routine notices of funding and acquisitions, plus some WP:UGC review sites [12], blogs [13] and an article by the company owner [14]. No better sourcing found through WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:NCORP sourcing requirements. Spicy ( talk) 18:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mirzaganj Upazila. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I declined A7 speedy deletion as the criteria doesn't apply to buildings. The article has already been sent to draft space, but the creator simply moved it back to article space again without improving it or adding any sources, so here we are. There is zero notability asserted and I don't see how this meets WP:NBUILD. Ponyo bons mots 17:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ring of Fire (band). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet any notability standards. Redirect to Ring of Fire (band). QuietHere ( talk) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. PR sources etc. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Second nomination, deleted per first nomination. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 15:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus that notability criteria satisfied under AUTHOR or PROF. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 19:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability due to WP:NPROF is marginal at best (the college the subject is the president of does not seem to be particularly "major academic institution" as required by WP:NACADEMIC#6), which combined with the fact that this is ultimately a poorly-sourced BLP which may otherwise have not met WP:BASIC (I was unable to find anything more than passing mentions or articles written by the subject) makes for a case for deletion. I would appreciate if additional sources that I cannot access can be found, but as things stand there are few, if any, reasons to have this article. Java Hurricane 15:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is clear consensus that there is notability here. There isn't clear consensus about keeping it at the present title or moving it to an article about his death, and this discussion does not preclude either option. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Extent of notability unclear. Not to mudsling the dead, but how was Kerpatenko encyclopedically notable as a musician?
Did being the principal conductor of the Kherson Regional Philharmonic's chamber orchestra and the Mykola Kulish Music and Drama Theatre make him a notable conductor/orchestrator as per WP:MUSICBIO?
Do we have any ample coverage from before 13 October 2022? I can't seem to find anything significant. Perhaps a Ukrainian speaker could take a look at any Ukrainian sources. Mooonswimmer 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion it will be a grave mistake to delete this entry. He may have not been an important musician before the Russian-Ukrainian war but his name is now known all over the world and his (alleged) murder has become a subject for protest and rage all over the world. The cruelty of the deed will very probably make him a symbol of the war and this has encyclopedic importance in my opinion. Rnaveh ( talk) 10:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Mostly one-off appearances or very minor roles. The "recurring role" in Big Bang Theory is actually 3 appearances. 7 appearances as "receptionist" likely doesn't qualify as significant. Nominations at non-notable film festivals don't really get one past the notability bar. Also, let's not forget the NACTOR standard is "multiple", not just a role. Most likely still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Reverie (video game). Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a non-notable track that does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article besides its peak position in the French charts (which was quite high) that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable track, does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article besides its peak position in the French charts that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English, Russian and Belarussian-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Subliminal (album). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable track, does not merit standalone article as per WP:NSINGLE. There's virtually nothing in this article (besides the charts position) that isn't available in the album's article. - Mooonswimmer 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable businesswoman. Being a published author does not make you a notable one. Couldn't find any ample coverage in reliable sources. - Mooonswimmer 14:02, 18 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. ✗ plicit 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources; ANYBIO applies here so delete per this rule Benedikt Gerendeg ( talk) 14:00, 18 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. ✗ plicit 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
THere are a number of schools with this name, which makes search results confusing. However I can't find even an assertion of notability for this school even from their own site nor is there any coverage to indicate otherwise. Star Mississippi 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass the general notability guideline or subject notability guideline for academics. All provided sources are routine coverage of exactly the same event, with nothing more substantial found in a WP:BEFORE search. The strongest claim to notability is provost of a not-so-well-known institution – the institution not being widely known is what casts doubt on NPROF being satisfied. Similarly, for his memberships, I don't believe simply being a member of, e.g., the Nigerian Institute of Management is enough by itself. This article was already draftified and moved back to mainspace (not an accepted AfC submission) with some improvement, though not enough to demonstrate notability. Complex/ Rational 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.”, at this juncture, I am leaning delete. Pinging Idoghor Melody for his input. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 11:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Wikt:crank. While it is true that AfD is not for cleanup, if none of the content in an article is viable, removing it has clear basis in policy. As such this discussion does not preclude a future article on cranks or crankery if built on sources discussing the topic as a whole, but the argument to redirect to the dictionary entry has clear consensus here. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has several major issues:
1) Scope: The opening sentence implies that the article is about the term crank, not the people to whom the term is applied, but in fact the term only gets a very brief treatment in the "Etymology" section – the remainder of that section deals with the etymology of crackpot and kook, and the rest of the article discusses characteristics of "cranky" beliefs.
2) NPOV: The article begins by telling us that "crank is a pejorative term", and then proceeds to continually use the term as a label, with such statements as "Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal".
3) Sourcing: The majority of the article is unsourced, and the sources that are present do not all provide verification. (For example, footnote 6, "An Editor Recalls Some Hopeless Papers", is a review of a particular set of mathematics papers, whose authors are not referred to as cranks, which is used as a source for the sweeping statement that "cranks tend to ignore any previous insights" etc.) The most heavily sourced section is "Crank magnetism", but half the sources in this section are blogs and dead links, and the other half don't contain the phrase "crank magnetism" (or even "crank").
There may be a notable topic here – either the term crank, or the concept of "crankery", or both – but I don't believe there is any content in the current article worth preserving. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 18:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Please return, it is too valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZelos ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The arguments to keep (or "leave") are not based in policy, and it's fairly evident that some form of canvassing or meat-puppetry is going on. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
There is not enough sources to show notability beside owning one stadium. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 10:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. Imho it's not a case about "Company pays money for naming rights". Coverage of the deal will come. I mentioned it above. All the points mentioned under "delete" are not the points to delete the article. There a lot of wiki-articles that have to be improved. The solution could be to leave the article, but provide it some templates like "the part of the article has to be improved", and so on. Web-wiki-warrior ( talk) 19:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. The company (Allrise Capital) is not a big one, but beside of sponsorship of FC Chornomorets and ownership of their stadium they are a venture capital provider, for example for " Automation Anywhere". There is source about the deal in the article. Guard123 ( talk) 09:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. There's no problems if we talk about issues like WP:PROMOTIONAL, WP:CORP and so on. Prego-ogerp ( talk) 09:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
* Leave. Instead of deleting, you can use the following templates in this case:![]() | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. |
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
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! 09:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Blatant advertising. Primary sources such as repackaged press releases comprise the majority of the page's sources. The FT article might be secondary and might contain some significant coverage but one source is not multiple sources The Bicycle of Dreams ( talk) 09:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a content fork of 2022 in the United States. Its creation was briefly discussed at Talk:2022 in the United States#Idea: Minor United States events in 2022 and I do understand the thinking behind it (basically to trim the very long main list), but the result in my view is an undesirable fork that contradicts the principles that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and is not news. If an event is too "minor" to include in the main list, it is not worth listing anywhere. Furthermore, any inclusion criteria for this list would require editors to do original research, since there are no sources that categorise current events into "minor" and "major" for us.
Usually when we have overlong lists we split them by sections, e.g. into 2022 in the United States (Jan–Jun) and 2022 in the United States (Jul–Dec), not by significance. We have thousands of "events in year"-type lists, so I think it would be a good idea to reach a wider consensus on whether this new subtype is desirable, before a significant precedent is set. – Joe ( talk) 09:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Anarchist Greek rock group, refused to sell any records. You start to see where my notability argument's going here already, right? "They followed a strictly anti-commercial tactic, never accepting promotion from mass media." Which is laudable, but sort of does for your AfD chances... Article sourced to blogs, no media coverage. No awards, no significant impact, no gold disks, no chart placements. Nothing but nihilism. Fails WP:MUSICBIO; WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:08, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No sources, and I cannot find enough even to establish notability. History suggests that much of what exists was original research by a member of the organization. Brian ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Not responding WP:NCORP as there are mainly press releases, gambling spam websites references, one interview, and other suspicious sources. Mambo Rumbo ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Remove per WP:NCORP - even not one reliable source found. Mambo Rumbo ( talk) 07:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Highly suspicious subject not meeting WP:NCORP with bad non reliable sources. Mambo Rumbo ( talk) 07:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Few reliable sources in the article, nothing found via WP:BEFORE. No good redirect target. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. I wish there was more participation from some of our eagle-eye AFD participants but the consensus here is that coverage of this subject passes GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Excessively relies on references to molossia.org. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 06:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Pima County, Arizona - Does not meet GEOLAND as there is no evidence of legal recognition or significant coverage, however I did find one article which mentions an archaeological site. Since we don't have sourcing that could be used to support the "populated place" description or write anything about this location beyond a stub, a redirect makes the most sense. – dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. Too many articles of this kind, oh my God! ~ Pog ing Juan 05:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from PogingJuan (see WP:ANI#Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. – Joe ( talk) 06:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~ Pog ing Juan 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Districts of the British Virgin Islands#Electoral districts. Redirected as I see no articles for other BVI electoral districts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Another microstub entry: but all of the other "Nth electoral district, BVI" articles have been deleted already. See: User:Shevonsilva#Electoral_Districts_(British_Virgin_Islands) Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 05:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; mostly database mentions and advertisements are what I can find online. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 05:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT; mostly database mentions are what I can find online. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 04:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1976 Winter Olympics – Four-man. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Highest rank was 11 in the 1976 Olympics and there doesn't seem to be enough reliable sources to be notable. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 04:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete and salt. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Persistent COI/UPE, has been deleted and draftified time and again and constantly recreated/yanked back into mainspace. It's been G11'd twice (it would have been three times, but mine was denied) and for good reason. A raft of references all of which are dubious/suspect/passing/primary are provided to attest to the brilliance of this "inventor, scientist and engineer, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) promoter, as well as a social activist." - subject is still at school. Enough is enough. Delete and SALT for the love of Mike... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 02:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Listed sources do not have significant coverage and thus fails WP:NGO. They are mostly more about the founder Jeff Campbell than the organization it self. 0x Deadbeef 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to
previous AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
03:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:39, 11 October 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!
04:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Closing as Delete because after 2, not 3, relists, there is no one advocating to Keep this article. Ordinarily, I'd close as Soft Delete but that is not possible here so Delete it is. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, this game from Deep-Sea Prisoner (the same person who made Mogeko Castle) does not meet WP:GNG. I have seen nothing from the reliable sources search engine that provides coverage or reviews. Oddly enough, the manga adaptation has a bit more coverage than the game itself (small blurbs from Crunchyroll, Anime News Network), but I don't think that will make the manga notable as well. Sparkl talk 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This article suffers the same problems as the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination) - it's a mass of often-outdated technical detail with too little context. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 18 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. ✗ plicit 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Exactly as described in the placenames book: a rail stop, not a settlement. GHits were clickbait and GBooks only came up with a variety of surname references having nothing to do with this spot. Mangoe ( talk) 02:07, 18 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. ✗ plicit 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The award doesn't appear to means he passes WP:ANYBIO "Gray was named one of...The annual list is compiled by broadcasting trade publication Radio Ink, which accepts nominations for outstanding contributions to the promotion of the African American radio industry." and I can find no other evidence of coverage to make this businessman notable. Star Mississippi 01:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bing Crosby discography. ✗ plicit 03:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Allmusic reference confirms the album exists but not that it is notable. The article's previous PROD notice was removed so a soft delete is not possible. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The Allmusic reference confirms the album exists but not that it is notable. The article's previous PROD notice was removed so a soft delete is not possible. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The highest office that he got is winning the municipal election, and in my opinion that has not satisfy the requirement of WP:NPOL yet. He lost the general election and the regional election. There is nothing in the article that showed that he is notable otherwise. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage. The other years don't have articles. SL93 ( talk) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure). --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The artist page itself
Giant Claw is questionable on notability (I'll be checking that in a bit), but this album from said artist does not meet
WP:MUSIC notability at all. It's got a tiny bit of media mention, but it's entirely inherited from the artist itself and just isn't notable enough in it's own right. The vast majority of citations in the article are meaningless or circular. It's written to make it look more important than it is. --
Tautomers(
T
C)
00:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I can't find much of anything from newspapers.com, google books, the internet archive, or any other source that might turn something up on an American journalist and activist. It does pain me to delete an article about a claudia, so I'd be somewhat happy to be proven wrong. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bernstein 2021 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Meyer | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
AP 1986 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Robertson 2004 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was redirect to Death's Dynamic Shroud. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't poke AfD anymore. However, I just undid a hasty redirect for the band page for Death's Dynamic Shroud as it does meet notability guidelines, and in the process found an album page of the band that definitely does not meet guidelines. So out of completeness I am putting this one up. It has no major or significant media coverage on it's own and is no where near close to standard for WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG as a whole. The article is basically just cited with youtube twitter and insignificant links, and a search reveals there is nothing notable. Further, more recent releases by the band have media coverage of their own but don't have enough to have stand alone album pages, so this one absolutely doesn't meet it -- Tautomers( T C) 00:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)