![]() |
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article has only primary references to the article subject's own websites. A WP:BEFORE search revealed little or no mention of the organization and no reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The content of the brooks college should go back to this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brooks_College&oldid=268962993 Class Action Lawsuits against Brooks College due to fraudulent activities. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg99773/html/CHRG-109hhrg99773.htm https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/comments09/c176.pdf Editior1482 ( talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
*Delete. Although this entity claimed accreditation status with Western Association of Schools and Colleges that could not be verified in the WASC directory, it does appear to be registered as a corporation with the office of California's Secretary of State. The building that is advertised as their address at 1225 Crossman Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, looks nothing like the building advertised on their very slick website. It doesn't even take spidey sense to be suspicious it's a scam diploma mill. But let's assume it's legit... the article fails WP:NCORP, and especially WP:AUD, requiring multiple independent, secondary, reliable regional and/or national sources. Period. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The only consensus I can see over the voluminous comments provided is the desire to keep this article in some form. I suggest moving the discussion from AFD to the article talk page to explore the possibility of renaming the article or merging some of the content to other articles. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This event fails WP:NEVENT, as this is neither something with WP:LASTING significance nor an event with wide geographical scope and could frankly be deleted under WP:DEL-REASON#8. Any content here can be appropriately covered within the article on Elizabeth II's death, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which is a more appropriate location to describe this article's subject. As such, I am proposing that we blank-and-redirect this article, as this is a non-notable event where any coverage would be better placed in the proper context of the death article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I think this is clearly one of those times; we're covering the line to see the queen in this article. Even for Evita, the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her or attend her funeral in a single section in her biographical article. I see no reason why the queue itself is expected to have lasting coverage that is better situated in its own article rather than in the broader context of the article on Elizabeth's death and state funeral. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sourcesvery clearly applies here. It has resulted in the hospitalisation of 45 people, is being assessed as being a potential world record, the coverage is only increasing and is also likely to be the focus of future scientific studies. In addition:
Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely)
The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Times...
gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.
for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources- Nobody has done that. We need evidence of lasting significance to demonstrate notability (which we do not yet have), and we need a reason for this to be separate from the main article (notability is required but not alone sufficient for this).
This is a subjective judgementIt is no more or less subjective/crystal bally as the prediction that coverage will continue. These arguments are effectively the contradictory advice given at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID (i.e. wait to create an article, and wait to delete an article). When someone ignores the former advice, the best we can do is use our judgment/experience to evaluate whether it's exceedingly likely there will continue to be coverage of this subject. My reading is that we will not see sustained coverage of the queue as distinct from the rest of the funeral, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a journalist and unelected political candidate, not
properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists or political candidates. The principal notability claim as a journalist is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of third-party analysis about him and his journalism, and candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- but this is not referenced to any
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, but to a mixture of
primary sources that aren't support for notability at all with glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about subjects other than himself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of, rather than a speaker in, his sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Thomas Aquinas. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and unsourced material from this article. This was much needed. However, as pointed out already back in 2007, the article "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" 's subject is vague.
There exist pages like
Hegelianism, or encyclopedic formats like
Hegel's Social and Political Philosophy. A summary of a thinker's philosophy is usually in a section of their biography article, e.g.
Arthur Schopenhauer#Philosophy. However, this WP article seem to have been little more than a blog for the WP user A E Francis' very personnal erratic reflexion on and random interests in such and such aspects discussed by Aquina. Why present usury? Why social justice? Very few secondary sources are used, so it looks like those aspects are personnal choices.
Therefore, this article should be either deleted, or turned into a redirect to
Thomism.
Veverve (
talk)
20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looks like a Merge is happening although editors are split whether it should be with
Thomism or
Thomas Aquinas. I see related content in both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still looking for opinions on what merge target is preferable here. Do I need to ping all participants?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. The only alternative to a redirect is a No consensus decision as participants are all over the map here. But I feel that there is more support for a redirect but, as a closer, it was confusing as several targets were mentioned. If you would prefer another redirect target, please discuss it at the talk page. The content is still present if there is any that those advocating a Merge want to make use of. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary content fork. A bat flip is a relatively common baseball “move.” This play is not independently notable and is already sufficiently covered in Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip Frank Anchor 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Contested PROD with the reasoning "he played in a competitive cup game for a fully pro Japanese top-flight team (Shimizu S Pulse)"
This player played one professional Cup game for Shimizu S Pulse. Although it's not reflected in the article, he's since continued his career in Japanese lower leagues.
I don't believe this player meets GNG. We have a few sources but they all appear to be routine coverage. Searches in English and Japanese don't reveal anything significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 19:31, 1 September 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!
18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. There is no clear consensus on notability either in terms of numbers or arguments, and no consensus for moving to draft space. This would normally tend to a no consensus result, and the article kept. However, there is a stronger, albeit conditional, argument for lack of notability in addition to the argument indicating lack of in-depth reliable sources, therefore I am giving this a soft delete where on request the article can be undeleted and moved into Draft space in order to be worked on. SilkTork ( talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC) SilkTork ( talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is not, in its current state, suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article improvement or a potential page move can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk)
08:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Reasonable people may disagree about the interpretation of SIGCOV, but consensus is with the "keep" side here. I will note that the cancellation of a show isn't a valid reason to delete an article about it, just as the airing of a show isn't a valid reason to keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails GNG, was never streamed because it was cancelled. See 8 Highly Anticipated Chinese Dramas That Were Suddenly Canceled! on YouTube @2:41, for the announcement of cancellation. Also iNews, iMedia <–– not the best sources but also serve as an example of the sources used in the article. Atsme 💬 📧 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.Keeping in mind the cited sources are far less reliable than the examples, and are questionable at best. I see nothing that makes this cancelled series notable, especially the fact that it fails WP:10YT. The cancellation takes us into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and if anything would be included in the respective BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The article notes from Google Translate: "Produced by iQiyi, co-produced by Yongle Film and Television, Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, the TV series "Night Wanderer" released two single posters and a trailer today. The film, full of details, is very exciting. ... "Night Wanderer" has been attracting attention since its official announcement, and this first trailer has revealed a mysterious corner of the show. At the beginning of the trailer, the figure holding an umbrella in the rainy night, and the corridor lights shaking in the dim light and shadow, together render a confusing atmosphere. The constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view."
The article notes from Google Translate: "On October 15, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni released the first trailer. ... The time and space of 1937 and 2017 staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai. Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) was originally a famous surgeon, but was unable to go to the operating table due to stress disorder due to medical malpractice. She had to go to the Forensic Forensic Appraisal Center of the Medical College and became an expert in forensic pathology."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, the TV series "Night Wanderer", produced by iQIYI, jointly produced by Yongle Film and Television, and Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, was officially completed and a trailer was released, with a high-quality production level and an original plot setting, which has aroused wide expectations. ... The new and old collide in the modern Republic of China In the official preview of the finalized version, the elegant and quiet colors and romantic freehand style show the inner turmoil of Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) and Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) in the big era. ... After five months of filming, "Night Wanderer" ended the first journey of "Night Journey". The gold medal team and all the leading actors worked hard to create the style of Shiliyangchang and the prosperity of modern magic capital for the audience. The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by."
The article notes: ""Night Wanderer" can be said to have both a modern background and a Republic of China background. The story is about the bizarre love fate of a modern female forensic doctor and a lawyer of the Republic of China who meet in the middle of the night in the interlaced time and space. ... "Night Wanderer" is a fantasy love drama directed by Wan Liyang, starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, starring Wang Yuwen, Gao Ye, Wang Duo, Liu Runnan, Yang Shize, Chen Xijun, Han Shuo, Wang Yuanke, Wang Dong, etc. ... The play tells the time and space of 1937 and 2021, staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Affected by the scandal, Deng Lun's iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" completed by the end of 2021 may not be broadcast. As for how to deal with the problem that "Night Wanderer" cannot be broadcast, the reporter tried to ask the relevant personnel of iQiyi, but has not yet received a reply. ... Among the works to be broadcast, the most watched is the iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, which will be completed by the end of 2021. According to people in the film and television industry, "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"."
The article notes from Google Translate: ""Love the Way You Are" starring Angelababy and Lai Kuan-lin and the fantasy romance "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, but Deng Lun was recently accused of tax evasion and was charged and fined 106 million yuan, even if Deng Lun later issued He apologized, but the brands that endorsed him immediately cut their seats, and mainland film and television platforms also removed his previous works. Although iQIYI focuses on promoting Deng Lun's new work "Night Wanderer" this time, I believe its broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely."
The article notes from Google Translate "The original drama "Night Wanderer" cooperating with Deng Lun and Ni Ni attracted much attention, but now it seems that it is difficult to broadcast, and many fans think that Ni Ni is worthless. However, a scene of the drama was exposed on the Internet a few days ago. In the film, Ni Ni was wearing a gorgeous costume, a staff member supported her, and another staff member was putting on her shoes. She looked down while eating and looked down again. Or looking left and right, without speaking or bending over, looking a little arrogant, which led to being called "playing a big name" by netizens."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Netizens are even more worried that Deng Lun and Ni Ni's new drama "Night Wanderer" will not be broadcast in the mainland as scheduled, because iQIYI only announced "Night Wanderer" on the international version of iQIYI as one of the key recommendations of the year. There was no mention of whether it would be broadcast in the Mainland."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The male protagonist Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) is an elegant and easy-going lawyer in the Republic of China, and the female protagonist Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) is a modern professional woman with a cold face and a soft heart."
The article notes from Google Translate: "On July 20, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni exposed the starring posters and opening photos."
This is detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews".
This is again detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews".
The policy says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". Sing Tao Daily thinks that the TV series' "broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely" owing to the star Deng Lun's tax troubles. Including this speculation from a reliable source in the article would be compliant with both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The article does not contain " unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions" about cancellation.Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF).
It is fine for Wikipedia to have an article about Night Wanderer even if Night Wanderer is never released. The article would discuss what reliable sources have said about its production and history as well as the critical analysis about its trailer.
together render a confusing atmosphereand
[the constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view, is it SIGCOV? Then let's discuss Economic Daily:
"Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"and
"Night Traveler" cannot be broadcast, it will cause serious damage to the platform. The loss will be self-evident, I remain unconvinced that three sentences are enough to be significant. WP:GNG is still not met, IMHO none of the refs are solidly enough to count as significant coverage, even though these refs taken together as WP:LOTSOFSOURCES might be convincing to some. VickKiang ( talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by.
With the film not even released, these aren't reviews but are all semi-promotional, non-significant overviews of the filming. I know this is about films, but to quote something similar from
WP:NFILM, Similarly, films produced in the past that were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines
. I'm unconvinced that this failure, which is just speculated by RS because of tax issues, is notable. Still, it's perfectly fine that you disagree with me. That's part of building a consensus, and if more editors agree to keep the article, I'll concur with the result of the consensus. Also, thanks very much for finding the refs- the amount of digging and
WP:BEFORE search you do in other languages is so impressive! Overall, I'm very impressed with your great salvaging of the article through finding lots of details and the policy-guided responses, but I still couldn't bring myself to keep this article. I'd also be interested in
Atsme's opinion. Many thanks again for your time and work with this article, and have a good day:)
VickKiang (
talk)
09:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Sources that provide hundreds of words "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" are considered "significant coverage" under the guideline. There is no notability guideline that excludes from consideration the content you are excluding. There is no evidence that the sources are promotional. Critical analysis about the TV series' trailer is critical analysis about the TV series. This television series received significant coverage when production ended, when the series' poster was released, when the trailer was released, and when the series release was speculated to been postponed indefinitely. A series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable. iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world. When a source discussing Night Wanderer's release postponement cites industry experts as saying it had been "one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022", it solidifies notability."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world: popularity is not a gauge of notability; it's like saying a viral video with millions of YouTube views deserves an article.
[summary]-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. What could be written for this indefinitely delayed film? Development/design? No- save a very brief trailer and video info that is basically a plot description and a cast list, which we can find for virtually every single film listed in a decent database. The reception/significance section is also virtually impossible. IMHO, it's difficult to write an article currently that doesn't violate these.
[a] series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable- a couple of coverage in 2021, and several news-like coverages about the actor quickly mentioning the show in 2022 only for the tax issue. I know this mainly applies to WP:NFILM, but most refs you provided, in fact, meet
plot summaries without critical commentary(or we could consider a one or 2-sentence description of the setting as "critical commentary" if so, that's certainly all right). Yes, it's for NFILM, but if we're dismissing WP:NTELEVISION entirely, that seems to be a similar guideline that this fits somehow. Again, thanks very much for your detail and replies! VickKiang ( talk) 10:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
[Moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. It's absolutely clear IMHO that, even if these are RS, the coverage are not "reviews", as you suggest, but announcement columns and minor news stories. If it's stated that these refs are "significant", that's all right and part of building a consensus, but I'd like to point out that context matters, not just a word count. If this is a corporation or product, it would definitely end in delete because the guideline explicitly states that routine news releases aren't acceptable to be SIGCOV. But the general notability guideline has it in a footnote and is less clearly worded. So, obviously semi-promotional news releases, disguised under 1 or 2 sentence commentary on the settings of the trailer, could be branded as a review (sigh)... I'm just providing another AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Asih (2nd nomination) that ended in draftify, but if these routine news releases are SIGCOV, then they could technicially be kept. But, for a show that is cancelled indefinitely, draftification is not an option, as the article is not even borderline notable, unless it is suggested that a cast overview like IMDb's listings, plot summary, and 1 or 2 sentence mentions are reviews. Many thanks for your time and help again, though I disagree strongly, thanks for your participation and work to keep this article! VickKiang ( talk) 05:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I encourage you to participate in the AfD discussion to share your rationale about why Night Wanderer passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelineis a bit strange IMO. Also, I'd like to argue against your arguments that the refs are RS. Where is it consensus that suggested these are not OR? Not all highly circulated newspapers are RS, such as The New York Post. These aren't even covered in RSP, an explanatory essay. Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays, which makes your argument poor IMO as you are entirely ignoring WP:NEPISODE and WP:NTELEVISION based on that they are essays, I'd like to know why would you consider these questionable refs to be RS? VickKiang ( talk) 04:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no requirement for sources like Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources before they can be used as sources. Regarding "Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays", I did not base my rationale for retention on any essays, so it's unclear why you are saying I am. I am basing my rationale for retention on RfCs. I consider Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be in the same category as Xinhua News Agency. WP:XINHUA links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RfC: Xinhua News Agency, which says (my bolding):
I consider these sources to be "generally reliable for factual reporting" as Night Wanderer is not an "are[a] where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation".There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.
Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try and find better sources to use in its stead; use inline attribution if you must use it. It is nonetheless a generally reliable source for views and positions of the Chinese government and officials.
In a discussion AfD nominator Atsme started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Atsme wrote, "If the topic is notable on a global scale, then English sources will be available, and if not, the article belongs in the respective language WP where users/readers are able to properly verify the material, yes or no?" Atsme further wrote: "At least paywalled sources are an indication that they are a likely RS, but a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China doesn't sound like a RS for verifying a TV series that has not yet been televised or streamed. I may be wrong, so be my guest and read the archived review from the original and see what you think about the process of actually getting to read the source. It may help explain why we have a 10k to 18k article backlog, and a dwindling number of reviewers."
I strongly disagree with the concept of "notable on a global scale" where articles about non-English topics are required to have significant coverage in English. This is a global encyclopedia and it is perfectly fine to use "a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China" when those sources meet the WP:XINHUA RfC standard.
I considerthese refs to be similar quality compared to Xinhua when evaluating the refs. So, you deem, without evidence (not even an essay), that the news sites are RS? For example, in an AfD, there are two sources, all of them like SPS and blogs, and we could just say, since we deem the source to be similar in quality to another, it's RS? And, why is a situational reliable ref that's unreliable not just for political-related topics but also extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people should be considered as notable? Also, this RfC conclusion also supports my statement that to include cancellation of the show because of tax issues is gossipy and WP:NOTNEWS. Even your reply admits that the news are similar in Xinhua, to state from your perspective, should not be used for extraodinary claims, further supporting that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also, Xinhua per the RfC is probably one of the better Chinese refs, your generalisation that the refs are RS is fully invalid. Further, are we forgetting that almost all of the refs you cite are from just two organisations (excluding reprints of stories)? Per WP:GNG:
Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, yes, they may be different stories, but are all from the same organisations, so I'm still viewing your argument as a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, using questionanble refs that are elevated to be reliable, and insignificant routine coverage deemed to be reviews. VickKiang ( talk) 07:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This book from Routledge notes, "The Beijing Youth Daily is affiliated with the Beijing Communist Youth League, but is a semi-independent paper and is staffed by contractors rather than Party insiders. It has built a reputation of being aggressive, ambitious and energetic. ... The semi-independent newspapers Beijing Youth Daily and Beijing News are mavericks, yet the power that they wield is different from that of CCTV. They face challenges in getting interviews with officials, and their reporters lack the protect on of official Party sanction."With a daily circulation of one million copies in 2000, Beijing Evening News has the highest circulation, while Beijing Youth Daily enjoys the highest advertising revenues. ... Beijing Youth Daily was once the official paper of the Beijing City Communist Youth League, and that organization remains the paper's "sponsoring unit" ("zhuban danwei"). It was suspended during the Cultural Revolution and revived in 1981, but remained a small-scale operation until the early 1990s when a series of reforms made it more efficient, established its own distribution network and advertising agency, and introduced a series of additional newspapers. Beijing Youth Daily is now the flagship of its own group, which is second in size only to the Guangzhou Daily Group."
These sources were published before star Deng Lun encountered tax troubles, so they would be used to verify critical analysis, plot information, and production information. They would not be used to support anything controversial. Speculation about the indefinite postponement of Night Wanderer owing to the tax troubles can be sourced to the Hong Kong-based HK01 and Sing Tao Daily. You have raised WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V again which I explained do not apply. Regarding the sources being "all from the same publication", this is incorrect. The Beijing Youth Daily, The Beijing News, HK01, and Sing Tao Daily are all different publications from different organisations.
Cunard ( talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
According to the South China Morning Post, an English newspaper from Hong Kong, the general public were afraid that The Beijing News would be turned into a "propaganda mouthpiece".[12] In February 2014, The Beijing News, made a news coverage regarding Zhou Yongkang's son possible corruption, but the article was taken down from the newspaper's website[13], so is one ref sorta praising the coverage, despite China's increased censorship recently, enough for it to be considered okay for political related and controversial-BLP related material? Same with HK01, see [24] that refutes your view that these papers should be considered to be superior or at least on par with Xinhua. So, what makes the
speculationsautomatically worthy of inclusion on WP? For your comment that the refs provide
critical commentary, I can't come to see even plotline reviews as full critical reviews (see previous link), so how are these almost all routine releases (even cautioned by a footnote from GNG) meeting GNG. As such, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V are obviously still failed IMHO, many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang ( talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
23:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Sumadia is an appointed (not elected) member of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (Philippines). This appointment in and of itself does not appear to convey the level of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Google searches turn up little to nothing of use up which to build a biography. The article has been marked for notability for 6 years with no apparent improvement. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing much in the way of GNG-qualifying sourcing, either in the article or via a WP:BEFORE search. There's a bit of coverage in the local press, but it's all either non-independent interviews or unreliable letters from readers. Other sources are unreliable (e.g. The Sun) and/or passing mentions; there's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note also that the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and SALTed at Blake Alma. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sal2100 ( talk) 21:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG. After combing through multiple search engines I found nothing, outside of this
one item of local news coverage, that would constitute (non-
routine) significant coverage of the subject in
reliable
secondary sources.
Sal2100 (
talk)
19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep per existence of two valid topics.
BD2412
T
01:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
We only have one article on a person by this name: Tina Peters (field hockey). Another Tina Peters is mentioned in 2022 Colorado Secretary of State election, but as there's a clear primary topic the latter article can be connected to the former with a hatnote and without the need for a disambiguation page. I was prepared to await an AfC decision on Draft:Tina Peters (Colorado) (see Talk:Tina Peters#Tina Peters (Colorado)), but as no progress in that direction has been made for a month I think we should delete this unnecessary disambiguation page, and move the hockey player article to the base name, with no prejudice against recreating it if an article on the Colorado politician ever comes into being. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Despite spirited opposition from the nominator, there is only one other person who has called for deletion in this instance. Furthermore, the keep side have successfully pointed to significant coverage in major publications such as the Houston Chronicle and reviews of his performances. It was repeated in the discussion that the coverage of Mr. Keast in the LA Times and WaPo is critical, but for WP:N purposes, whether the coverage is positive or negative is not relevant.
I will also note that the arbitration committee recently stated a principle regarding WP:BLUDGEON here. While making replies to comments is clearly within the scope of acceptable conduct, making accusations such as "You just steamrollered in here without a clue" is not constructive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
BLP with woeful refs. Profiles and sps sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very very early career. scope_creep Talk 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The best source I see is a conference paper by the authors ( [35]). They published a follow up few years later I think ( [36]). I am not seeing much impact or significance of this project, and frankly, the article seems to acknowledge the small impact of this: "The system is now in active use in several universities" (in use how?), " Marionnet has been presented at two international Computer Science conferences, many French events[5] and at FOSDEM". For a French project, there is no French interwiki (I checked, I don't think it was ever written about there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose:I think it is fair to object. Marionnet is still being used and in fact developed. Here is a very recent reference:
Rushed Kanawati's home page lists a papers about Mariotel, along with a public presentation in Germany: https://www-lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~kanawati/ The paper has been accepted but not yet published as of September 2022.
There has been another paper about Marionnet by Camille Coti, published in 2015: https://dblp.org/pid/78/4708.html Disclaimer: I have not read it.
Other disclaimer: I am Luca Saiu, one of the original authors. Am I in a conflict of interest? I am not sure. I am no longer involved with the project, Université Paris 13 (since renamed), or indeed France. -- positron ( talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ( All sources are from one TV serial ) PravinGanechari ( talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. Cunard who supported keeping the article provided a number of sources to support his position that Chase Tang meets the WP:GNG criterion of significant secondary coverage. While it has been asserted that the coverage isn't sufficiently significant, I find little in the way of arguments to support that position, and several of the later "delete"s lack much reasoning beyond an assertion of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of any significant notability. The NETFLIX appearance which sources make much of, is for an uncredited part. This is also true of all the remaining acting parts. There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR which requires that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" Velella Velella Talk 12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "The 31-year-old, who grew up in the Nova Scotia communities of Bedford and Upper Tantallon, has just embarked on another project he believes is one of his most important yet. Tang, who formerly went by Chia-Hao Tang, recently lent his face to a new United Nations campaign called The World is in Our Hands."
The article notes: "Chase Tang was raised in Bedford and Upper Tantallon, N.S., after his family emigrated from Taiwan when he was a child. He grew up playing hockey, then worked in the corporate world before turning to acting. He has been cast as the villain in Jupiter's Legacy, which will be his biggest role to date."
The article notes: "Up-and-coming Halifax-raised actor, Chase Tang, has been getting a lot of press as of late. Sure, he landed a big break as a villain on Netflix's Jupiter's Legacy, starring Josh Duhamel, but that's not important right now. His truly Canadian modesty shines through when he speaks about lending his strengthening celebrity voice and his face to the latest campaign for climate change awareness, The World is in our Hands."
The article notes: "Tang graduated with a commerce degree and worked in the corporate world for eight years. Curious about the entertainment industry growing up, he decided to quit his job and finally pursue acting in 2016. That year, he took his first acting class. ... At the end of 2019, Tang signed for his first major show with Netflix which launched in 2020."
The article notes: "Bedford-raised actor Chase Tang kept building up steam as 2019 progressed, and he has no plans for stopping in 2020. The former Nova Scotia AAA hockey player quit a corporate job in Toronto to pursue modelling and acting a couple of years ago and landed his first major role as the villain Baryon in the Ontario-shot Netflix superhero series Jupiter's Legacy, set to appear on the popular streaming platform later in 2020."
The article notes from Google Translate: "31-year-old Hollywood Chinese actor Tang Jiahao recently participated in the Netflix superhero series Jupiter's Legacy. He is a big bad guy in the play and has a lot of martial arts. He was interviewed yesterday and talked about the past. Originally a senior executive of a financial enterprise with an annual income of more than 3 million yuan, four years ago, he gave up his high salary to realize his dream and officially embarked on the road of acting."
The article notes from Google Translate: "FTV's "Entertainment Super skr" hosts Forrest Gump and Xiaolu went international, and interviewed Hollywood actor Chase Tang. ... Chase Tang came to the show to promote "Jupiter's Legacy", which will be broadcast on Netflix at the end of the year or early next year."
The article notes from Google Translate: "This time, when he returned to Taiwan to sign the contract, he also specially met with Taiwanese media. ... He only made his debut at the age of 26. He has done a lot of work in the past, in 3C industry, marketing planning, insurance, and later became an executive of a financial company. When his income is the highest, his annual salary can be as high as 140,000 Canadian dollars (3.2 million Taiwan dollars) ... Chase Tang, who immigrated to Canada with his parents at a young age, played ice hockey very well when he was 10 to 13 years old. At that time, he was almost a big star in the eyes of the locals, and everyone liked him very much."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Chase Tang, who performed in Netflix's "The Legend of Jupiter", was born in Taiwan and moved to Canada with his family at the age of 6. He used to be a professional ice hockey player in high school, and he also broke into the National Hockey League tryouts in North America. Later, he injured his knee in an accident and had to give up his dream of being an athlete."
Delete Most of the above sources provided by Cunard are insignificant and/or possibly unreliable. The interviews don't appear independent enough to justify the inclusion of this article. Is there something notable the subject has accomplished? See also
WP:NACTOR; for point #1, this subject doesn't have notable roles in films and for #2, I don't think they've "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment
" (what I said about the sources).
Also, the user who made this article, Melaniewang, the user who made the article Chase Tang on Simple Wikipedia, Irene Germo, and the user who took this photograph, claiming to be a "photographer", Krisz Tarcsi, are all single purpose accounts. Nythar T. C 06:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Here are three example sources from only the English-language sources (though the Chinese-language sources are good too): d'Entremont 2019 , Khan 2021 , and Cooke 2020 . While the sources contain interviews with him, there is enough non-interview material to meet the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard ( talk) 06:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
No impact. WP:NOTDATABASE WP:NOTCATALOG Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Singularity42 ( talk) 21:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Disputed WP:BLAR. Article is an unattributed copy-paste from Ethiopian Civil War#History. I thought a redirect made sense. Article creator reverted without explanation. As per WP:BLAR, AfD is an appropriate forum to resolve this dispute. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Unless I'm missing something, there's no "delete" opinions from unblocked users. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
He is not notable. It might have been thought he was at the time, but nothing has come of this. The most recent reference on his page is almost 5 years old (from Dec 2017), and his LinkedIn profile shows nothing of note since 2018, and even this was a Junior Prize. There was a lot of hype at the time, but he has achieved very little. Perhaps his article can be reinstated in the future when he achieves something noteworthy. WondrousMachine ( talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
*Strong Delete - To be honest this guy does seem pretty irrelevant. And as was said in the last nomination, it's just a resume boost.
Tanner68573 (
talk)
17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
'May have cured breast cancer'. Didn't, it would seem.We have many pages about people who have their main claim to notability to be that they tried, and failed, at curing breast cancer; that isn't a reason to delete their pages. Saying negative things about the subject isn't a reason to delete, explaining why it fails notability or otherwise meets a criteria for deletion is. Skynxnex ( talk) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Gloomhaven#Sequel. The consensus is explicitly for the topic as it stands today; if notability changes substantially, possibly as the result of new media, this discussion is no bar to recreation. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Information on this article is entirely contained on the Gloomhaven page, save for the Infobox information. Unreleased board game, 50% of the article is about the kickstarter campaign, fails to show independent notability and certainly WP:TOOSOON until separate notability can be shown. Suggest merging infobox into Gloomhaven#Frosthaven. Skipple ☎ 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The game is scheduled for release in September 2022despite no reviews now. VickKiang 23:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
A Kickstarter update from August 12 says Cephalofair’s goal is to get backer’s Frosthaven copies in their hands by Christmas 2022.Curtosy ping for @ BOZ: and @ Hobit:. Skipple ☎ 23:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Previously deleted article. Subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. No significant roles. Career is a series of minor movie roles and single appearances in shows. Rumor of being cast in a show that never happened won't get past it either. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
While a working music producer, can't find the in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a messy discussion, numerically split 3-4 for delete-vs redirect and 2-2 on the redirect target. THe argument to redirect would normally be strong, given WP:ATD, but in the absence of a good target, is rendered virtually null. There is a clear absence of consensus about the target; the two !votes favoring redirecting to one of the band members are nullified, in my view, by the argument that when two members exist, redirecting to one of them isn't appropriate. The argument to redirect to the album is weakened by questions about whether the album is notable at all. There is clear consensus that a standalone article isn't viable, and the most direct way to implement that is deletion, which I'm enacting. If the article about the album survives the AfD it is probably being sent to, it will likely be reasonable to redirect this there. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Prev. deleted, clearly fails GNG & NMUSIC, cited sources unreliable except for a single NYTimes citation that is not even about Demon Queen but
Black Moth Super Rainbow, and it's passing mention in one sentence about style of music.deleted unrelated material
Atsme
💬
📧 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC) The albums are
self-released labels, basically FB, YT style garage-band recordings. This article was created by
User:Goldborg (64 edits), and I suspect a COI is involved or possibly UPE, and that includes the related articles in the suggested redirects:
Tobacco (musician) was created by
Satwig who has 6 edits, it was expanded but even then, the cited sources do not pass RS to support N/GNG.
Black Moth Super Rainbow (created by
Sdhursh (7 edits) and it is not notable beyond 1 or 2 sources with passing mention used to describe this type of music by a very small cult following; thus, the self-promotion. It is G11 but not an obvious one, so here we are, and I'm thinking if the closer is of the mind to also delete the related self-promotion articles being suggested for the redirect of this article, they have my support. It's a self-released label, self-promoting garage band, duo, and music producer striving for attention with a very small cult following...maybe 2,000.
Atsme
💬
📧
16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks just about even between delete and redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.It is not just the multiple targets either. A search for "Demon Queen" might now or in the future throw up hits in pages on fantasy gaming, fiction novels and TV shows. Anyone searching on the phrase might be rather surprised to find themselves taken directly to a page on some obscure garage band instead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The arguments to merge are strongest, in my view, but nonetheless do not have clear consensus. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AN/ARC-27, here's another case of a catalogue-like, poorly referenced entry about a piece of military equipment that seems to fail WP:GNG. My BEFORE, again, failed to locate anything but a few passing mentions that suffice to confirm this entity exists/ed, but not that it is notable. More cleanup of Category:Aircraft stations is likely still needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split 2-2-2 for delete, keep, and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While the article does have many sources, there is merit to the argument that none of them really give in-depth coverage beyond news articles/press releases stating that someone won an award, and that none of the sources really show that the award is a significant one. Without any analysis as to which of the sources provide notability, I cannot give the dissenting "keep" much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
To start with, this thing has all the hallmarks of a scam (asking for self-nominations "subject to a nominal fee", see also this and that reddit threads). But... that’s, like, my opinion, and even so, it might still be a notable scam.
Admittedly, I have not read all the 31 references. However, all I checked are either from the design award themselves, or from recipients of the awards, or otherwise non-independent - most of those can be seen from the ref title/URL only, and others can be quickly discerned by clicking the link.
A
WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of value. A generic search for "A' design award"
brings up non-indy sources, and trying to restrict the search to newspapers etc. causes the search to match the string a design award
which of course is not specific enough.
Tigraan
Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)
09:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This award/grant/scholarship announcement was submitted by an ArchDaily user, and that has
this is a sponsored post. (Possibly the non-English ones also have some language of that sort, but I’m accessing them through DeepL, so I might miss some stuff.) Only one of the other eight has a byline attributing the content to a staff member (and that staff member is the editor-in-chief, so possibly that is the default one). Finally, one of them has text both in English and Spanish, which highly suggests an unchecked copy-paste job.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 15 September 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 12:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not passing WP:NACTOR or ANYBIO, Reliable sources, GNG. Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Equally unfortunately, the article creator has been defending his work with an unwarranted level of ownership reflected in the edit summaries, in other related creations of his, and at ANI, disparaging the efforts of those he feels are "non-experts" in the field. I can't claim that the subject is non-notable, or that it is unverifiable. But I feel that the article is unsalvageable as it stands, and that blowing it up and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Article subject has not been covered by significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Article should hence be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Virtually unreferenced stub on a non-notable footy team. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM. This was declined at AfC but the creator moved it to main space anyway; then a speedy request was removed by a mystery IP editor (!), so here we are at AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 11:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Popalzai. Clear consensus to redirect, but nobody has explicitly mentioned a target. Reading between the lines I'm led to believe the !votes are referring to Popalzai, but if I'm mistaken, and there isn't clear agreement, a talk-page discussion or RfD may be needed. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this stub while adding article descriptions in my commute. It's plausible that the subject exists, insofar as there are people with the last name Habibzai. But I've performed a WP:BEFORE and found essentially zero reliable sources discussing it. The Panjab Chiefs mentioned it but I question the reliability of this source, and it's literally one mention. There's a ResearchGate link but that's not a WP:RS. BeReasonabl ( talk) 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
16:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sources are not required to be online; old print sources are certainly acceptable; but if no evidence of their existence has been found, "keep" arguments based on the supposition that they do are rather weak. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable primary school. Of the sources cited, only the Tatler piece comes even close to RS sigcov, and it alone isn't enough; search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
We wouldn't accept a contemporary bio of a businessman with so little a level of notability, sourced from his own memoirs. It may be an interesting read, but it cannot be used as the basis for notability of its author. Ravenswing 07:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
...where he had died, unless I'm mistaken, in 1912.). The story is ostensibly about the Russian Far East military forces in 1903, but spends a bunch of time talking about the Finnish captain. He is not mentioned in Suomen kansallisbiografia. As for the sourcing currently in the article, Ref #1 seems rather non-independent based on author list. The History of Modern Whaling (Ref #3) appears to have approximately one page of content about him, which is a bit so-and-so in terms of establishing notability but not horrible. It does describe him as a
the pioneer of Russian coastal whaling in the Far East, which I think could be be interpreted as a claim for notability. I don't really have visibility to Refs #2, #4, #5 and #6, but Google books gives a bunch of hits in Eurasian Environments (Ref #6) and there's at least a mention or two in the Anderssen book (Ref #5). Does anyone have visibility to these sources? Leaning towards a "weak delete" unless we can get descriptions of refs #2 and #4-6. - Ljleppan ( talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vennila Veedu. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)
Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But there is no reliable sources of the director other than passing mentions. This source has him talking to The Times of India about an unreleased film but not much can be found about his career that are non-passing mentions (like an interview with a newspaper). His third film had a low-key release but not many notable newspapers reviewed that film, so he only has two notable films. Is two a body of work? What about his short film titled Pencil? Based on this source, it received a "lot of accolades" which one other that the "Melbourne Tamil Sangam's Film Festival" (is that even notable)? When did the short film release. Original research should not have to be used.
Is his third film notable (reviewed by Maalai Malar)? If it was (had another reliable review) then maybe he would have been notable. Sadly Filmibeat.com ( review here) is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force.
I would propose a redirect to Vennila Veedu, his most notable work. DareshMohan ( talk) 07:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alone (2015 Kannada film). Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)
Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But lack of significant coverage (not passing mentions) is why this should be deleted for now. Also so many directors have directed two films, is two really a body of work as opposed to four, five, etc.?
All the sources in this article, in
Shathru (2013 film) and in
Alone (2015 Kannada film) are passing mentions. This
source mentions him three times (JK/the director) but is about an unreleased film.
DareshMohan (
talk)
06:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I would propose a redirect to Alone (2015 Kannada film), his most notable work. DareshMohan ( talk) 08:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Despite a leaning "delete", consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "delete". Nonetheless, anyone is free to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
NN college softball player, fails the GNG going away, with only one semi-valid source from a small town paper. The other sources are casual mentions, primary sources and the subject's Twitter feed. Meets no criteria of NSPORTS. Article created by a SPA who had almost no edits outside this article. Ravenswing 19:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
05:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not enough WP:RS and fails WP:SIGCOV; doesn't meet WP:GNG? — Tulsi 24x7 05:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Article has no sources, possibly contains original research, and is not linked-to by other Wikipedia pages. Has not been edited since 2018. Dmoore5556 ( talk) 04:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Coverage of this player appears to be limited to routine databases and his mention, in a list of several others, in a number of articles about a match fixing scandal (e.g. https://www.modernghana.com/sports/1176519/breaking-news-cas-free-21-players-involved-in.html). Rusalkii ( talk) 04:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Could not find any coverage of this player beyond routine databases. Rusalkii ( talk) 03:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rico Nasty#2021–present: Rx and Las Ruinas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This is what happens when we make articles on future-stuff without an official announcement. This was never given a release date (only a general timeframe), was supposed to happen last year, and she's since released Las Ruinas. It's all-but clear this will never happen and this "non-happening" is not notable enough for its own article. — VersaceSpace 🌃 03:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Having Caris LeVert join the Pacers for a season was not helpful for searching, but as far as I can tell this one is some phantasy of the highway department, or maybe the GNIS compiler misread things. At any rate, the location is spang in the center of Lake Everett, and while there is a neighborhood on the north side, the fact there are no real estate hits for Lavert indicates that nobody seems to think this is the neighborhood's name. Beyond that, I get nothing but gazetteer and clickbait hits. I think this is a totally fictitious place. Mangoe ( talk) 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
gazetteer and clickbait hitsper nom. — Danre98( talk^ contribs) 03:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I am proposing this article be deleted or redirected to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles.
I boldly redirected myself but BeanieFan11 (correctly) reverted it after finding some coverage.
I have added both pieces of coverage I can find into the article but I still don't think it's enough for a GNG pass. One is very local and the other appears to be based almost entirely on an interview. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Just noting for the record that the previous AFD was about a different person with the same name. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
only source in article is a database. fails
notability guidelines for sportspeople.
lettherebedarklight,
晚安,
おやすみ,
ping me when replying
14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
i got WP:HEY'd. again. anyway, i withdraw my nomination statement. i can't close this because others have voted to delete/redirect this. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mainstream (disambiguation). The arguments to keep hinge on what this article could be, not what it is; as such there is consensus to redirect, but if anyone wishes to salvage material from the history for a new article, they are welcome to do so. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid this article is a major mess that may warrant WP:TNT. The treatment of "mainstream" as an overarching concept is very brief and poorly referenced (to a dictionary, and to three academic articles that however do not discuss mainstream as a main concept, but just very minor aspects of it in the context of media consumption in the Czech Republic and mainstream churches). In other words, the definition in the lead, sensible at first glance, seems ORish. Then we have an etymology section and a collection of chapters on "mainstream this" or "mainsteam that", including my new chapter on mainstream fiction (which I mostly merged to literary fiction as well, since it seems to be on this topic). The "Sociology" section seems the worst, since despite being short it seems to mix several concepts, from that of normality to the critique of mainstream sociology. Overall this article seems like a disambig expanded to discuss various concepts that are not connected to one another by any independent, reliable source. I am afraid WP:TNT may apply, with my recommendation being to split/merge some content (ex. the religion and science section can be used to start mainstream religion and mainsttream science articles) and then redirect this to the disambig page. For those who would like to keep this, I ask - can you find a source that discusses mainstream as an overarching concept, as well as the dimensions of m edia, religion, science, fiction, etc.? Otherwise, again, we have a wiki essay on "all things called mainstream" (that is "grossly incomplete", since why not discuss within "mainstream biology", "mainstream physics", "mainstream culture", "mainstream toys", etc.). That's what disambigs are for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
This article meet with neutral point of view of all countries in the tournament.
This article was based only on information published in reliable sources (secondary sources and official web site for complemented).
Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
Comment. This article should be kept. The article can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing, but not for deletion.
Relates articles:
2022 Sud Ladies Cup
Revelations Cup
2022 SheBelieves Cup.
Rey1996ss (
talk)
17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Reference 1:
Colombian Football Federation
Reference 2:
onefootball.com
Reference 3:
Fémina Fútbol Magazine
Reference 4:
minuto30.com
Reference 5:
Revelations Cup Mexico-Official Twitter
There was a little confussion - some people thought this wasn't real, or this wasn't a tournament. But this was the inaugural edition of the tournament, some people did not know about this tournament.
There are many friendly-tournaments: SheBelievesCup, Toulon/Maurice Revello, or Arnold Clark Cup. The only difference is that this is U-17. In fact, the match ceremony was attended by members of the local government of León,
Guanajuato.
Authorities for Mexican Football Federation and local government of León in the tournament award ceremony:
click on 2:31:06
Colombia with the tournament champion trophy:
2:37:28
Rey1996ss (
talk)
18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of sources have been presented, just need some assurance they confer adequate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The article should be keep
This article confer notability
WP:EVENT:
The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Every listed source is about the company's partnership with Manchester FC in Asia, and any source I came across doing a WP:BEFORE search had the same problem. There is no coverage I could find that verifies that this is a notable gambling site. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:12, 15 September 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! 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Minor project, appears promotional, also appears to fail WP:SIRS. Nythar T. C 00:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article has only primary references to the article subject's own websites. A WP:BEFORE search revealed little or no mention of the organization and no reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The content of the brooks college should go back to this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brooks_College&oldid=268962993 Class Action Lawsuits against Brooks College due to fraudulent activities. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg99773/html/CHRG-109hhrg99773.htm https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/comments09/c176.pdf Editior1482 ( talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
*Delete. Although this entity claimed accreditation status with Western Association of Schools and Colleges that could not be verified in the WASC directory, it does appear to be registered as a corporation with the office of California's Secretary of State. The building that is advertised as their address at 1225 Crossman Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, looks nothing like the building advertised on their very slick website. It doesn't even take spidey sense to be suspicious it's a scam diploma mill. But let's assume it's legit... the article fails WP:NCORP, and especially WP:AUD, requiring multiple independent, secondary, reliable regional and/or national sources. Period. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. The only consensus I can see over the voluminous comments provided is the desire to keep this article in some form. I suggest moving the discussion from AFD to the article talk page to explore the possibility of renaming the article or merging some of the content to other articles. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This event fails WP:NEVENT, as this is neither something with WP:LASTING significance nor an event with wide geographical scope and could frankly be deleted under WP:DEL-REASON#8. Any content here can be appropriately covered within the article on Elizabeth II's death, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which is a more appropriate location to describe this article's subject. As such, I am proposing that we blank-and-redirect this article, as this is a non-notable event where any coverage would be better placed in the proper context of the death article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I think this is clearly one of those times; we're covering the line to see the queen in this article. Even for Evita, the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her or attend her funeral in a single section in her biographical article. I see no reason why the queue itself is expected to have lasting coverage that is better situated in its own article rather than in the broader context of the article on Elizabeth's death and state funeral. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sourcesvery clearly applies here. It has resulted in the hospitalisation of 45 people, is being assessed as being a potential world record, the coverage is only increasing and is also likely to be the focus of future scientific studies. In addition:
Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely)
The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Times...
gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.
for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources- Nobody has done that. We need evidence of lasting significance to demonstrate notability (which we do not yet have), and we need a reason for this to be separate from the main article (notability is required but not alone sufficient for this).
This is a subjective judgementIt is no more or less subjective/crystal bally as the prediction that coverage will continue. These arguments are effectively the contradictory advice given at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID (i.e. wait to create an article, and wait to delete an article). When someone ignores the former advice, the best we can do is use our judgment/experience to evaluate whether it's exceedingly likely there will continue to be coverage of this subject. My reading is that we will not see sustained coverage of the queue as distinct from the rest of the funeral, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a journalist and unelected political candidate, not
properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists or political candidates. The principal notability claim as a journalist is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of third-party analysis about him and his journalism, and candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- but this is not referenced to any
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, but to a mixture of
primary sources that aren't support for notability at all with glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about subjects other than himself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of, rather than a speaker in, his sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Thomas Aquinas. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and unsourced material from this article. This was much needed. However, as pointed out already back in 2007, the article "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" 's subject is vague.
There exist pages like
Hegelianism, or encyclopedic formats like
Hegel's Social and Political Philosophy. A summary of a thinker's philosophy is usually in a section of their biography article, e.g.
Arthur Schopenhauer#Philosophy. However, this WP article seem to have been little more than a blog for the WP user A E Francis' very personnal erratic reflexion on and random interests in such and such aspects discussed by Aquina. Why present usury? Why social justice? Very few secondary sources are used, so it looks like those aspects are personnal choices.
Therefore, this article should be either deleted, or turned into a redirect to
Thomism.
Veverve (
talk)
20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looks like a Merge is happening although editors are split whether it should be with
Thomism or
Thomas Aquinas. I see related content in both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still looking for opinions on what merge target is preferable here. Do I need to ping all participants?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. The only alternative to a redirect is a No consensus decision as participants are all over the map here. But I feel that there is more support for a redirect but, as a closer, it was confusing as several targets were mentioned. If you would prefer another redirect target, please discuss it at the talk page. The content is still present if there is any that those advocating a Merge want to make use of. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary content fork. A bat flip is a relatively common baseball “move.” This play is not independently notable and is already sufficiently covered in Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip Frank Anchor 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Contested PROD with the reasoning "he played in a competitive cup game for a fully pro Japanese top-flight team (Shimizu S Pulse)"
This player played one professional Cup game for Shimizu S Pulse. Although it's not reflected in the article, he's since continued his career in Japanese lower leagues.
I don't believe this player meets GNG. We have a few sources but they all appear to be routine coverage. Searches in English and Japanese don't reveal anything significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 19:31, 1 September 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!
18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. There is no clear consensus on notability either in terms of numbers or arguments, and no consensus for moving to draft space. This would normally tend to a no consensus result, and the article kept. However, there is a stronger, albeit conditional, argument for lack of notability in addition to the argument indicating lack of in-depth reliable sources, therefore I am giving this a soft delete where on request the article can be undeleted and moved into Draft space in order to be worked on. SilkTork ( talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC) SilkTork ( talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is not, in its current state, suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article improvement or a potential page move can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk)
08:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Reasonable people may disagree about the interpretation of SIGCOV, but consensus is with the "keep" side here. I will note that the cancellation of a show isn't a valid reason to delete an article about it, just as the airing of a show isn't a valid reason to keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails GNG, was never streamed because it was cancelled. See 8 Highly Anticipated Chinese Dramas That Were Suddenly Canceled! on YouTube @2:41, for the announcement of cancellation. Also iNews, iMedia <–– not the best sources but also serve as an example of the sources used in the article. Atsme 💬 📧 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.Keeping in mind the cited sources are far less reliable than the examples, and are questionable at best. I see nothing that makes this cancelled series notable, especially the fact that it fails WP:10YT. The cancellation takes us into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and if anything would be included in the respective BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The article notes from Google Translate: "Produced by iQiyi, co-produced by Yongle Film and Television, Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, the TV series "Night Wanderer" released two single posters and a trailer today. The film, full of details, is very exciting. ... "Night Wanderer" has been attracting attention since its official announcement, and this first trailer has revealed a mysterious corner of the show. At the beginning of the trailer, the figure holding an umbrella in the rainy night, and the corridor lights shaking in the dim light and shadow, together render a confusing atmosphere. The constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view."
The article notes from Google Translate: "On October 15, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni released the first trailer. ... The time and space of 1937 and 2017 staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai. Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) was originally a famous surgeon, but was unable to go to the operating table due to stress disorder due to medical malpractice. She had to go to the Forensic Forensic Appraisal Center of the Medical College and became an expert in forensic pathology."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, the TV series "Night Wanderer", produced by iQIYI, jointly produced by Yongle Film and Television, and Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, was officially completed and a trailer was released, with a high-quality production level and an original plot setting, which has aroused wide expectations. ... The new and old collide in the modern Republic of China In the official preview of the finalized version, the elegant and quiet colors and romantic freehand style show the inner turmoil of Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) and Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) in the big era. ... After five months of filming, "Night Wanderer" ended the first journey of "Night Journey". The gold medal team and all the leading actors worked hard to create the style of Shiliyangchang and the prosperity of modern magic capital for the audience. The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by."
The article notes: ""Night Wanderer" can be said to have both a modern background and a Republic of China background. The story is about the bizarre love fate of a modern female forensic doctor and a lawyer of the Republic of China who meet in the middle of the night in the interlaced time and space. ... "Night Wanderer" is a fantasy love drama directed by Wan Liyang, starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, starring Wang Yuwen, Gao Ye, Wang Duo, Liu Runnan, Yang Shize, Chen Xijun, Han Shuo, Wang Yuanke, Wang Dong, etc. ... The play tells the time and space of 1937 and 2021, staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Affected by the scandal, Deng Lun's iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" completed by the end of 2021 may not be broadcast. As for how to deal with the problem that "Night Wanderer" cannot be broadcast, the reporter tried to ask the relevant personnel of iQiyi, but has not yet received a reply. ... Among the works to be broadcast, the most watched is the iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, which will be completed by the end of 2021. According to people in the film and television industry, "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"."
The article notes from Google Translate: ""Love the Way You Are" starring Angelababy and Lai Kuan-lin and the fantasy romance "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, but Deng Lun was recently accused of tax evasion and was charged and fined 106 million yuan, even if Deng Lun later issued He apologized, but the brands that endorsed him immediately cut their seats, and mainland film and television platforms also removed his previous works. Although iQIYI focuses on promoting Deng Lun's new work "Night Wanderer" this time, I believe its broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely."
The article notes from Google Translate "The original drama "Night Wanderer" cooperating with Deng Lun and Ni Ni attracted much attention, but now it seems that it is difficult to broadcast, and many fans think that Ni Ni is worthless. However, a scene of the drama was exposed on the Internet a few days ago. In the film, Ni Ni was wearing a gorgeous costume, a staff member supported her, and another staff member was putting on her shoes. She looked down while eating and looked down again. Or looking left and right, without speaking or bending over, looking a little arrogant, which led to being called "playing a big name" by netizens."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Netizens are even more worried that Deng Lun and Ni Ni's new drama "Night Wanderer" will not be broadcast in the mainland as scheduled, because iQIYI only announced "Night Wanderer" on the international version of iQIYI as one of the key recommendations of the year. There was no mention of whether it would be broadcast in the Mainland."
The article notes from Google Translate: "The male protagonist Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) is an elegant and easy-going lawyer in the Republic of China, and the female protagonist Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) is a modern professional woman with a cold face and a soft heart."
The article notes from Google Translate: "On July 20, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni exposed the starring posters and opening photos."
This is detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews".
This is again detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews".
The policy says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". Sing Tao Daily thinks that the TV series' "broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely" owing to the star Deng Lun's tax troubles. Including this speculation from a reliable source in the article would be compliant with both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The article does not contain " unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions" about cancellation.Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF).
It is fine for Wikipedia to have an article about Night Wanderer even if Night Wanderer is never released. The article would discuss what reliable sources have said about its production and history as well as the critical analysis about its trailer.
together render a confusing atmosphereand
[the constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view, is it SIGCOV? Then let's discuss Economic Daily:
"Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"and
"Night Traveler" cannot be broadcast, it will cause serious damage to the platform. The loss will be self-evident, I remain unconvinced that three sentences are enough to be significant. WP:GNG is still not met, IMHO none of the refs are solidly enough to count as significant coverage, even though these refs taken together as WP:LOTSOFSOURCES might be convincing to some. VickKiang ( talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by.
With the film not even released, these aren't reviews but are all semi-promotional, non-significant overviews of the filming. I know this is about films, but to quote something similar from
WP:NFILM, Similarly, films produced in the past that were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines
. I'm unconvinced that this failure, which is just speculated by RS because of tax issues, is notable. Still, it's perfectly fine that you disagree with me. That's part of building a consensus, and if more editors agree to keep the article, I'll concur with the result of the consensus. Also, thanks very much for finding the refs- the amount of digging and
WP:BEFORE search you do in other languages is so impressive! Overall, I'm very impressed with your great salvaging of the article through finding lots of details and the policy-guided responses, but I still couldn't bring myself to keep this article. I'd also be interested in
Atsme's opinion. Many thanks again for your time and work with this article, and have a good day:)
VickKiang (
talk)
09:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Sources that provide hundreds of words "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" are considered "significant coverage" under the guideline. There is no notability guideline that excludes from consideration the content you are excluding. There is no evidence that the sources are promotional. Critical analysis about the TV series' trailer is critical analysis about the TV series. This television series received significant coverage when production ended, when the series' poster was released, when the trailer was released, and when the series release was speculated to been postponed indefinitely. A series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable. iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world. When a source discussing Night Wanderer's release postponement cites industry experts as saying it had been "one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022", it solidifies notability."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Cunard ( talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world: popularity is not a gauge of notability; it's like saying a viral video with millions of YouTube views deserves an article.
[summary]-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. What could be written for this indefinitely delayed film? Development/design? No- save a very brief trailer and video info that is basically a plot description and a cast list, which we can find for virtually every single film listed in a decent database. The reception/significance section is also virtually impossible. IMHO, it's difficult to write an article currently that doesn't violate these.
[a] series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable- a couple of coverage in 2021, and several news-like coverages about the actor quickly mentioning the show in 2022 only for the tax issue. I know this mainly applies to WP:NFILM, but most refs you provided, in fact, meet
plot summaries without critical commentary(or we could consider a one or 2-sentence description of the setting as "critical commentary" if so, that's certainly all right). Yes, it's for NFILM, but if we're dismissing WP:NTELEVISION entirely, that seems to be a similar guideline that this fits somehow. Again, thanks very much for your detail and replies! VickKiang ( talk) 10:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
[Moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. It's absolutely clear IMHO that, even if these are RS, the coverage are not "reviews", as you suggest, but announcement columns and minor news stories. If it's stated that these refs are "significant", that's all right and part of building a consensus, but I'd like to point out that context matters, not just a word count. If this is a corporation or product, it would definitely end in delete because the guideline explicitly states that routine news releases aren't acceptable to be SIGCOV. But the general notability guideline has it in a footnote and is less clearly worded. So, obviously semi-promotional news releases, disguised under 1 or 2 sentence commentary on the settings of the trailer, could be branded as a review (sigh)... I'm just providing another AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Asih (2nd nomination) that ended in draftify, but if these routine news releases are SIGCOV, then they could technicially be kept. But, for a show that is cancelled indefinitely, draftification is not an option, as the article is not even borderline notable, unless it is suggested that a cast overview like IMDb's listings, plot summary, and 1 or 2 sentence mentions are reviews. Many thanks for your time and help again, though I disagree strongly, thanks for your participation and work to keep this article! VickKiang ( talk) 05:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I encourage you to participate in the AfD discussion to share your rationale about why Night Wanderer passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelineis a bit strange IMO. Also, I'd like to argue against your arguments that the refs are RS. Where is it consensus that suggested these are not OR? Not all highly circulated newspapers are RS, such as The New York Post. These aren't even covered in RSP, an explanatory essay. Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays, which makes your argument poor IMO as you are entirely ignoring WP:NEPISODE and WP:NTELEVISION based on that they are essays, I'd like to know why would you consider these questionable refs to be RS? VickKiang ( talk) 04:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no requirement for sources like Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources before they can be used as sources. Regarding "Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays", I did not base my rationale for retention on any essays, so it's unclear why you are saying I am. I am basing my rationale for retention on RfCs. I consider Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be in the same category as Xinhua News Agency. WP:XINHUA links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RfC: Xinhua News Agency, which says (my bolding):
I consider these sources to be "generally reliable for factual reporting" as Night Wanderer is not an "are[a] where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation".There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.
Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try and find better sources to use in its stead; use inline attribution if you must use it. It is nonetheless a generally reliable source for views and positions of the Chinese government and officials.
In a discussion AfD nominator Atsme started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Atsme wrote, "If the topic is notable on a global scale, then English sources will be available, and if not, the article belongs in the respective language WP where users/readers are able to properly verify the material, yes or no?" Atsme further wrote: "At least paywalled sources are an indication that they are a likely RS, but a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China doesn't sound like a RS for verifying a TV series that has not yet been televised or streamed. I may be wrong, so be my guest and read the archived review from the original and see what you think about the process of actually getting to read the source. It may help explain why we have a 10k to 18k article backlog, and a dwindling number of reviewers."
I strongly disagree with the concept of "notable on a global scale" where articles about non-English topics are required to have significant coverage in English. This is a global encyclopedia and it is perfectly fine to use "a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China" when those sources meet the WP:XINHUA RfC standard.
I considerthese refs to be similar quality compared to Xinhua when evaluating the refs. So, you deem, without evidence (not even an essay), that the news sites are RS? For example, in an AfD, there are two sources, all of them like SPS and blogs, and we could just say, since we deem the source to be similar in quality to another, it's RS? And, why is a situational reliable ref that's unreliable not just for political-related topics but also extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people should be considered as notable? Also, this RfC conclusion also supports my statement that to include cancellation of the show because of tax issues is gossipy and WP:NOTNEWS. Even your reply admits that the news are similar in Xinhua, to state from your perspective, should not be used for extraodinary claims, further supporting that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also, Xinhua per the RfC is probably one of the better Chinese refs, your generalisation that the refs are RS is fully invalid. Further, are we forgetting that almost all of the refs you cite are from just two organisations (excluding reprints of stories)? Per WP:GNG:
Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, yes, they may be different stories, but are all from the same organisations, so I'm still viewing your argument as a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, using questionanble refs that are elevated to be reliable, and insignificant routine coverage deemed to be reviews. VickKiang ( talk) 07:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This book from Routledge notes, "The Beijing Youth Daily is affiliated with the Beijing Communist Youth League, but is a semi-independent paper and is staffed by contractors rather than Party insiders. It has built a reputation of being aggressive, ambitious and energetic. ... The semi-independent newspapers Beijing Youth Daily and Beijing News are mavericks, yet the power that they wield is different from that of CCTV. They face challenges in getting interviews with officials, and their reporters lack the protect on of official Party sanction."With a daily circulation of one million copies in 2000, Beijing Evening News has the highest circulation, while Beijing Youth Daily enjoys the highest advertising revenues. ... Beijing Youth Daily was once the official paper of the Beijing City Communist Youth League, and that organization remains the paper's "sponsoring unit" ("zhuban danwei"). It was suspended during the Cultural Revolution and revived in 1981, but remained a small-scale operation until the early 1990s when a series of reforms made it more efficient, established its own distribution network and advertising agency, and introduced a series of additional newspapers. Beijing Youth Daily is now the flagship of its own group, which is second in size only to the Guangzhou Daily Group."
These sources were published before star Deng Lun encountered tax troubles, so they would be used to verify critical analysis, plot information, and production information. They would not be used to support anything controversial. Speculation about the indefinite postponement of Night Wanderer owing to the tax troubles can be sourced to the Hong Kong-based HK01 and Sing Tao Daily. You have raised WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V again which I explained do not apply. Regarding the sources being "all from the same publication", this is incorrect. The Beijing Youth Daily, The Beijing News, HK01, and Sing Tao Daily are all different publications from different organisations.
Cunard ( talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
According to the South China Morning Post, an English newspaper from Hong Kong, the general public were afraid that The Beijing News would be turned into a "propaganda mouthpiece".[12] In February 2014, The Beijing News, made a news coverage regarding Zhou Yongkang's son possible corruption, but the article was taken down from the newspaper's website[13], so is one ref sorta praising the coverage, despite China's increased censorship recently, enough for it to be considered okay for political related and controversial-BLP related material? Same with HK01, see [24] that refutes your view that these papers should be considered to be superior or at least on par with Xinhua. So, what makes the
speculationsautomatically worthy of inclusion on WP? For your comment that the refs provide
critical commentary, I can't come to see even plotline reviews as full critical reviews (see previous link), so how are these almost all routine releases (even cautioned by a footnote from GNG) meeting GNG. As such, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V are obviously still failed IMHO, many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang ( talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Comr Melody Idoghor
(talk)
21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete.
BD2412
T
23:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Sumadia is an appointed (not elected) member of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (Philippines). This appointment in and of itself does not appear to convey the level of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Google searches turn up little to nothing of use up which to build a biography. The article has been marked for notability for 6 years with no apparent improvement. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing much in the way of GNG-qualifying sourcing, either in the article or via a WP:BEFORE search. There's a bit of coverage in the local press, but it's all either non-independent interviews or unreliable letters from readers. Other sources are unreliable (e.g. The Sun) and/or passing mentions; there's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note also that the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and SALTed at Blake Alma. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Sal2100 ( talk) 21:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG. After combing through multiple search engines I found nothing, outside of this
one item of local news coverage, that would constitute (non-
routine) significant coverage of the subject in
reliable
secondary sources.
Sal2100 (
talk)
19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep per existence of two valid topics.
BD2412
T
01:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
We only have one article on a person by this name: Tina Peters (field hockey). Another Tina Peters is mentioned in 2022 Colorado Secretary of State election, but as there's a clear primary topic the latter article can be connected to the former with a hatnote and without the need for a disambiguation page. I was prepared to await an AfC decision on Draft:Tina Peters (Colorado) (see Talk:Tina Peters#Tina Peters (Colorado)), but as no progress in that direction has been made for a month I think we should delete this unnecessary disambiguation page, and move the hockey player article to the base name, with no prejudice against recreating it if an article on the Colorado politician ever comes into being. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Despite spirited opposition from the nominator, there is only one other person who has called for deletion in this instance. Furthermore, the keep side have successfully pointed to significant coverage in major publications such as the Houston Chronicle and reviews of his performances. It was repeated in the discussion that the coverage of Mr. Keast in the LA Times and WaPo is critical, but for WP:N purposes, whether the coverage is positive or negative is not relevant.
I will also note that the arbitration committee recently stated a principle regarding WP:BLUDGEON here. While making replies to comments is clearly within the scope of acceptable conduct, making accusations such as "You just steamrollered in here without a clue" is not constructive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
BLP with woeful refs. Profiles and sps sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very very early career. scope_creep Talk 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The best source I see is a conference paper by the authors ( [35]). They published a follow up few years later I think ( [36]). I am not seeing much impact or significance of this project, and frankly, the article seems to acknowledge the small impact of this: "The system is now in active use in several universities" (in use how?), " Marionnet has been presented at two international Computer Science conferences, many French events[5] and at FOSDEM". For a French project, there is no French interwiki (I checked, I don't think it was ever written about there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose:I think it is fair to object. Marionnet is still being used and in fact developed. Here is a very recent reference:
Rushed Kanawati's home page lists a papers about Mariotel, along with a public presentation in Germany: https://www-lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~kanawati/ The paper has been accepted but not yet published as of September 2022.
There has been another paper about Marionnet by Camille Coti, published in 2015: https://dblp.org/pid/78/4708.html Disclaimer: I have not read it.
Other disclaimer: I am Luca Saiu, one of the original authors. Am I in a conflict of interest? I am not sure. I am no longer involved with the project, Université Paris 13 (since renamed), or indeed France. -- positron ( talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ( All sources are from one TV serial ) PravinGanechari ( talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. Cunard who supported keeping the article provided a number of sources to support his position that Chase Tang meets the WP:GNG criterion of significant secondary coverage. While it has been asserted that the coverage isn't sufficiently significant, I find little in the way of arguments to support that position, and several of the later "delete"s lack much reasoning beyond an assertion of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of any significant notability. The NETFLIX appearance which sources make much of, is for an uncredited part. This is also true of all the remaining acting parts. There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR which requires that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" Velella Velella Talk 12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The article notes: "The 31-year-old, who grew up in the Nova Scotia communities of Bedford and Upper Tantallon, has just embarked on another project he believes is one of his most important yet. Tang, who formerly went by Chia-Hao Tang, recently lent his face to a new United Nations campaign called The World is in Our Hands."
The article notes: "Chase Tang was raised in Bedford and Upper Tantallon, N.S., after his family emigrated from Taiwan when he was a child. He grew up playing hockey, then worked in the corporate world before turning to acting. He has been cast as the villain in Jupiter's Legacy, which will be his biggest role to date."
The article notes: "Up-and-coming Halifax-raised actor, Chase Tang, has been getting a lot of press as of late. Sure, he landed a big break as a villain on Netflix's Jupiter's Legacy, starring Josh Duhamel, but that's not important right now. His truly Canadian modesty shines through when he speaks about lending his strengthening celebrity voice and his face to the latest campaign for climate change awareness, The World is in our Hands."
The article notes: "Tang graduated with a commerce degree and worked in the corporate world for eight years. Curious about the entertainment industry growing up, he decided to quit his job and finally pursue acting in 2016. That year, he took his first acting class. ... At the end of 2019, Tang signed for his first major show with Netflix which launched in 2020."
The article notes: "Bedford-raised actor Chase Tang kept building up steam as 2019 progressed, and he has no plans for stopping in 2020. The former Nova Scotia AAA hockey player quit a corporate job in Toronto to pursue modelling and acting a couple of years ago and landed his first major role as the villain Baryon in the Ontario-shot Netflix superhero series Jupiter's Legacy, set to appear on the popular streaming platform later in 2020."
The article notes from Google Translate: "31-year-old Hollywood Chinese actor Tang Jiahao recently participated in the Netflix superhero series Jupiter's Legacy. He is a big bad guy in the play and has a lot of martial arts. He was interviewed yesterday and talked about the past. Originally a senior executive of a financial enterprise with an annual income of more than 3 million yuan, four years ago, he gave up his high salary to realize his dream and officially embarked on the road of acting."
The article notes from Google Translate: "FTV's "Entertainment Super skr" hosts Forrest Gump and Xiaolu went international, and interviewed Hollywood actor Chase Tang. ... Chase Tang came to the show to promote "Jupiter's Legacy", which will be broadcast on Netflix at the end of the year or early next year."
The article notes from Google Translate: "This time, when he returned to Taiwan to sign the contract, he also specially met with Taiwanese media. ... He only made his debut at the age of 26. He has done a lot of work in the past, in 3C industry, marketing planning, insurance, and later became an executive of a financial company. When his income is the highest, his annual salary can be as high as 140,000 Canadian dollars (3.2 million Taiwan dollars) ... Chase Tang, who immigrated to Canada with his parents at a young age, played ice hockey very well when he was 10 to 13 years old. At that time, he was almost a big star in the eyes of the locals, and everyone liked him very much."
The article notes from Google Translate: "Chase Tang, who performed in Netflix's "The Legend of Jupiter", was born in Taiwan and moved to Canada with his family at the age of 6. He used to be a professional ice hockey player in high school, and he also broke into the National Hockey League tryouts in North America. Later, he injured his knee in an accident and had to give up his dream of being an athlete."
Delete Most of the above sources provided by Cunard are insignificant and/or possibly unreliable. The interviews don't appear independent enough to justify the inclusion of this article. Is there something notable the subject has accomplished? See also
WP:NACTOR; for point #1, this subject doesn't have notable roles in films and for #2, I don't think they've "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment
" (what I said about the sources).
Also, the user who made this article, Melaniewang, the user who made the article Chase Tang on Simple Wikipedia, Irene Germo, and the user who took this photograph, claiming to be a "photographer", Krisz Tarcsi, are all single purpose accounts. Nythar T. C 06:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Here are three example sources from only the English-language sources (though the Chinese-language sources are good too): d'Entremont 2019 , Khan 2021 , and Cooke 2020 . While the sources contain interviews with him, there is enough non-interview material to meet the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard ( talk) 06:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
No impact. WP:NOTDATABASE WP:NOTCATALOG Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Singularity42 ( talk) 21:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Disputed WP:BLAR. Article is an unattributed copy-paste from Ethiopian Civil War#History. I thought a redirect made sense. Article creator reverted without explanation. As per WP:BLAR, AfD is an appropriate forum to resolve this dispute. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Unless I'm missing something, there's no "delete" opinions from unblocked users. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
He is not notable. It might have been thought he was at the time, but nothing has come of this. The most recent reference on his page is almost 5 years old (from Dec 2017), and his LinkedIn profile shows nothing of note since 2018, and even this was a Junior Prize. There was a lot of hype at the time, but he has achieved very little. Perhaps his article can be reinstated in the future when he achieves something noteworthy. WondrousMachine ( talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
*Strong Delete - To be honest this guy does seem pretty irrelevant. And as was said in the last nomination, it's just a resume boost.
Tanner68573 (
talk)
17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
'May have cured breast cancer'. Didn't, it would seem.We have many pages about people who have their main claim to notability to be that they tried, and failed, at curing breast cancer; that isn't a reason to delete their pages. Saying negative things about the subject isn't a reason to delete, explaining why it fails notability or otherwise meets a criteria for deletion is. Skynxnex ( talk) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Gloomhaven#Sequel. The consensus is explicitly for the topic as it stands today; if notability changes substantially, possibly as the result of new media, this discussion is no bar to recreation. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Information on this article is entirely contained on the Gloomhaven page, save for the Infobox information. Unreleased board game, 50% of the article is about the kickstarter campaign, fails to show independent notability and certainly WP:TOOSOON until separate notability can be shown. Suggest merging infobox into Gloomhaven#Frosthaven. Skipple ☎ 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The game is scheduled for release in September 2022despite no reviews now. VickKiang 23:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
A Kickstarter update from August 12 says Cephalofair’s goal is to get backer’s Frosthaven copies in their hands by Christmas 2022.Curtosy ping for @ BOZ: and @ Hobit:. Skipple ☎ 23:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Previously deleted article. Subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. No significant roles. Career is a series of minor movie roles and single appearances in shows. Rumor of being cast in a show that never happened won't get past it either. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
While a working music producer, can't find the in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. This is a messy discussion, numerically split 3-4 for delete-vs redirect and 2-2 on the redirect target. THe argument to redirect would normally be strong, given WP:ATD, but in the absence of a good target, is rendered virtually null. There is a clear absence of consensus about the target; the two !votes favoring redirecting to one of the band members are nullified, in my view, by the argument that when two members exist, redirecting to one of them isn't appropriate. The argument to redirect to the album is weakened by questions about whether the album is notable at all. There is clear consensus that a standalone article isn't viable, and the most direct way to implement that is deletion, which I'm enacting. If the article about the album survives the AfD it is probably being sent to, it will likely be reasonable to redirect this there. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Prev. deleted, clearly fails GNG & NMUSIC, cited sources unreliable except for a single NYTimes citation that is not even about Demon Queen but
Black Moth Super Rainbow, and it's passing mention in one sentence about style of music.deleted unrelated material
Atsme
💬
📧 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC) The albums are
self-released labels, basically FB, YT style garage-band recordings. This article was created by
User:Goldborg (64 edits), and I suspect a COI is involved or possibly UPE, and that includes the related articles in the suggested redirects:
Tobacco (musician) was created by
Satwig who has 6 edits, it was expanded but even then, the cited sources do not pass RS to support N/GNG.
Black Moth Super Rainbow (created by
Sdhursh (7 edits) and it is not notable beyond 1 or 2 sources with passing mention used to describe this type of music by a very small cult following; thus, the self-promotion. It is G11 but not an obvious one, so here we are, and I'm thinking if the closer is of the mind to also delete the related self-promotion articles being suggested for the redirect of this article, they have my support. It's a self-released label, self-promoting garage band, duo, and music producer striving for attention with a very small cult following...maybe 2,000.
Atsme
💬
📧
16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks just about even between delete and redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.It is not just the multiple targets either. A search for "Demon Queen" might now or in the future throw up hits in pages on fantasy gaming, fiction novels and TV shows. Anyone searching on the phrase might be rather surprised to find themselves taken directly to a page on some obscure garage band instead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The arguments to merge are strongest, in my view, but nonetheless do not have clear consensus. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AN/ARC-27, here's another case of a catalogue-like, poorly referenced entry about a piece of military equipment that seems to fail WP:GNG. My BEFORE, again, failed to locate anything but a few passing mentions that suffice to confirm this entity exists/ed, but not that it is notable. More cleanup of Category:Aircraft stations is likely still needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split 2-2-2 for delete, keep, and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
12:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While the article does have many sources, there is merit to the argument that none of them really give in-depth coverage beyond news articles/press releases stating that someone won an award, and that none of the sources really show that the award is a significant one. Without any analysis as to which of the sources provide notability, I cannot give the dissenting "keep" much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
To start with, this thing has all the hallmarks of a scam (asking for self-nominations "subject to a nominal fee", see also this and that reddit threads). But... that’s, like, my opinion, and even so, it might still be a notable scam.
Admittedly, I have not read all the 31 references. However, all I checked are either from the design award themselves, or from recipients of the awards, or otherwise non-independent - most of those can be seen from the ref title/URL only, and others can be quickly discerned by clicking the link.
A
WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of value. A generic search for "A' design award"
brings up non-indy sources, and trying to restrict the search to newspapers etc. causes the search to match the string a design award
which of course is not specific enough.
Tigraan
Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)
09:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This award/grant/scholarship announcement was submitted by an ArchDaily user, and that has
this is a sponsored post. (Possibly the non-English ones also have some language of that sort, but I’m accessing them through DeepL, so I might miss some stuff.) Only one of the other eight has a byline attributing the content to a staff member (and that staff member is the editor-in-chief, so possibly that is the default one). Finally, one of them has text both in English and Spanish, which highly suggests an unchecked copy-paste job.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 15 September 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 12:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not passing WP:NACTOR or ANYBIO, Reliable sources, GNG. Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Equally unfortunately, the article creator has been defending his work with an unwarranted level of ownership reflected in the edit summaries, in other related creations of his, and at ANI, disparaging the efforts of those he feels are "non-experts" in the field. I can't claim that the subject is non-notable, or that it is unverifiable. But I feel that the article is unsalvageable as it stands, and that blowing it up and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Article subject has not been covered by significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Article should hence be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Virtually unreferenced stub on a non-notable footy team. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM. This was declined at AfC but the creator moved it to main space anyway; then a speedy request was removed by a mystery IP editor (!), so here we are at AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 11:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Popalzai. Clear consensus to redirect, but nobody has explicitly mentioned a target. Reading between the lines I'm led to believe the !votes are referring to Popalzai, but if I'm mistaken, and there isn't clear agreement, a talk-page discussion or RfD may be needed. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this stub while adding article descriptions in my commute. It's plausible that the subject exists, insofar as there are people with the last name Habibzai. But I've performed a WP:BEFORE and found essentially zero reliable sources discussing it. The Panjab Chiefs mentioned it but I question the reliability of this source, and it's literally one mention. There's a ResearchGate link but that's not a WP:RS. BeReasonabl ( talk) 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
16:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sources are not required to be online; old print sources are certainly acceptable; but if no evidence of their existence has been found, "keep" arguments based on the supposition that they do are rather weak. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable primary school. Of the sources cited, only the Tatler piece comes even close to RS sigcov, and it alone isn't enough; search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
We wouldn't accept a contemporary bio of a businessman with so little a level of notability, sourced from his own memoirs. It may be an interesting read, but it cannot be used as the basis for notability of its author. Ravenswing 07:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
...where he had died, unless I'm mistaken, in 1912.). The story is ostensibly about the Russian Far East military forces in 1903, but spends a bunch of time talking about the Finnish captain. He is not mentioned in Suomen kansallisbiografia. As for the sourcing currently in the article, Ref #1 seems rather non-independent based on author list. The History of Modern Whaling (Ref #3) appears to have approximately one page of content about him, which is a bit so-and-so in terms of establishing notability but not horrible. It does describe him as a
the pioneer of Russian coastal whaling in the Far East, which I think could be be interpreted as a claim for notability. I don't really have visibility to Refs #2, #4, #5 and #6, but Google books gives a bunch of hits in Eurasian Environments (Ref #6) and there's at least a mention or two in the Anderssen book (Ref #5). Does anyone have visibility to these sources? Leaning towards a "weak delete" unless we can get descriptions of refs #2 and #4-6. - Ljleppan ( talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vennila Veedu. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)
Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But there is no reliable sources of the director other than passing mentions. This source has him talking to The Times of India about an unreleased film but not much can be found about his career that are non-passing mentions (like an interview with a newspaper). His third film had a low-key release but not many notable newspapers reviewed that film, so he only has two notable films. Is two a body of work? What about his short film titled Pencil? Based on this source, it received a "lot of accolades" which one other that the "Melbourne Tamil Sangam's Film Festival" (is that even notable)? When did the short film release. Original research should not have to be used.
Is his third film notable (reviewed by Maalai Malar)? If it was (had another reliable review) then maybe he would have been notable. Sadly Filmibeat.com ( review here) is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force.
I would propose a redirect to Vennila Veedu, his most notable work. DareshMohan ( talk) 07:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alone (2015 Kannada film). Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)
Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But lack of significant coverage (not passing mentions) is why this should be deleted for now. Also so many directors have directed two films, is two really a body of work as opposed to four, five, etc.?
All the sources in this article, in
Shathru (2013 film) and in
Alone (2015 Kannada film) are passing mentions. This
source mentions him three times (JK/the director) but is about an unreleased film.
DareshMohan (
talk)
06:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I would propose a redirect to Alone (2015 Kannada film), his most notable work. DareshMohan ( talk) 08:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Despite a leaning "delete", consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "delete". Nonetheless, anyone is free to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
NN college softball player, fails the GNG going away, with only one semi-valid source from a small town paper. The other sources are casual mentions, primary sources and the subject's Twitter feed. Meets no criteria of NSPORTS. Article created by a SPA who had almost no edits outside this article. Ravenswing 19:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
05:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not enough WP:RS and fails WP:SIGCOV; doesn't meet WP:GNG? — Tulsi 24x7 05:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Article has no sources, possibly contains original research, and is not linked-to by other Wikipedia pages. Has not been edited since 2018. Dmoore5556 ( talk) 04:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Coverage of this player appears to be limited to routine databases and his mention, in a list of several others, in a number of articles about a match fixing scandal (e.g. https://www.modernghana.com/sports/1176519/breaking-news-cas-free-21-players-involved-in.html). Rusalkii ( talk) 04:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Could not find any coverage of this player beyond routine databases. Rusalkii ( talk) 03:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rico Nasty#2021–present: Rx and Las Ruinas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This is what happens when we make articles on future-stuff without an official announcement. This was never given a release date (only a general timeframe), was supposed to happen last year, and she's since released Las Ruinas. It's all-but clear this will never happen and this "non-happening" is not notable enough for its own article. — VersaceSpace 🌃 03:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Having Caris LeVert join the Pacers for a season was not helpful for searching, but as far as I can tell this one is some phantasy of the highway department, or maybe the GNIS compiler misread things. At any rate, the location is spang in the center of Lake Everett, and while there is a neighborhood on the north side, the fact there are no real estate hits for Lavert indicates that nobody seems to think this is the neighborhood's name. Beyond that, I get nothing but gazetteer and clickbait hits. I think this is a totally fictitious place. Mangoe ( talk) 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
gazetteer and clickbait hitsper nom. — Danre98( talk^ contribs) 03:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I am proposing this article be deleted or redirected to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles.
I boldly redirected myself but BeanieFan11 (correctly) reverted it after finding some coverage.
I have added both pieces of coverage I can find into the article but I still don't think it's enough for a GNG pass. One is very local and the other appears to be based almost entirely on an interview. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Just noting for the record that the previous AFD was about a different person with the same name. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
only source in article is a database. fails
notability guidelines for sportspeople.
lettherebedarklight,
晚安,
おやすみ,
ping me when replying
14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
i got WP:HEY'd. again. anyway, i withdraw my nomination statement. i can't close this because others have voted to delete/redirect this. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
01:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mainstream (disambiguation). The arguments to keep hinge on what this article could be, not what it is; as such there is consensus to redirect, but if anyone wishes to salvage material from the history for a new article, they are welcome to do so. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid this article is a major mess that may warrant WP:TNT. The treatment of "mainstream" as an overarching concept is very brief and poorly referenced (to a dictionary, and to three academic articles that however do not discuss mainstream as a main concept, but just very minor aspects of it in the context of media consumption in the Czech Republic and mainstream churches). In other words, the definition in the lead, sensible at first glance, seems ORish. Then we have an etymology section and a collection of chapters on "mainstream this" or "mainsteam that", including my new chapter on mainstream fiction (which I mostly merged to literary fiction as well, since it seems to be on this topic). The "Sociology" section seems the worst, since despite being short it seems to mix several concepts, from that of normality to the critique of mainstream sociology. Overall this article seems like a disambig expanded to discuss various concepts that are not connected to one another by any independent, reliable source. I am afraid WP:TNT may apply, with my recommendation being to split/merge some content (ex. the religion and science section can be used to start mainstream religion and mainsttream science articles) and then redirect this to the disambig page. For those who would like to keep this, I ask - can you find a source that discusses mainstream as an overarching concept, as well as the dimensions of m edia, religion, science, fiction, etc.? Otherwise, again, we have a wiki essay on "all things called mainstream" (that is "grossly incomplete", since why not discuss within "mainstream biology", "mainstream physics", "mainstream culture", "mainstream toys", etc.). That's what disambigs are for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
This article meet with neutral point of view of all countries in the tournament.
This article was based only on information published in reliable sources (secondary sources and official web site for complemented).
Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
Comment. This article should be kept. The article can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing, but not for deletion.
Relates articles:
2022 Sud Ladies Cup
Revelations Cup
2022 SheBelieves Cup.
Rey1996ss (
talk)
17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Reference 1:
Colombian Football Federation
Reference 2:
onefootball.com
Reference 3:
Fémina Fútbol Magazine
Reference 4:
minuto30.com
Reference 5:
Revelations Cup Mexico-Official Twitter
There was a little confussion - some people thought this wasn't real, or this wasn't a tournament. But this was the inaugural edition of the tournament, some people did not know about this tournament.
There are many friendly-tournaments: SheBelievesCup, Toulon/Maurice Revello, or Arnold Clark Cup. The only difference is that this is U-17. In fact, the match ceremony was attended by members of the local government of León,
Guanajuato.
Authorities for Mexican Football Federation and local government of León in the tournament award ceremony:
click on 2:31:06
Colombia with the tournament champion trophy:
2:37:28
Rey1996ss (
talk)
18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of sources have been presented, just need some assurance they confer adequate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The article should be keep
This article confer notability
WP:EVENT:
The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Every listed source is about the company's partnership with Manchester FC in Asia, and any source I came across doing a WP:BEFORE search had the same problem. There is no coverage I could find that verifies that this is a notable gambling site. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:12, 15 September 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! 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Minor project, appears promotional, also appears to fail WP:SIRS. Nythar T. C 00:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)