![]() |
The result was redirect to Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 50 metre freestyle. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:29, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable band, there is very little info about them online. 747pilot ( talk) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Searching online "ТТ-34" (using the Cyrillic character te instead of the Latin letter T, turns up more content, some of which goes beyond passing reference. No judgement on the quality of the sources though...
They're also apparently in the (not online) Энцыклапедыя беларускай папулярнай музыкі (Encyclopedia of Belarusian popular music). Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No sources, not verifiable.
Oliver Virk (
talk) 10:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Sock strike.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Aspiring kickboxer. Doesn't appear to meet the current WP:NKICK or WP:NBOXING and I don't believe the existing coverage meets WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV. Being daughter to a notable person does not constitute notability. However, she's is mentioned in her father’s articles.
Additionally, one could suggest that WP:NKICK criteria is reviewed? 1) There is only a few kickboxers these days that would win Raja and Lumpinee titles (so what happens with Glory, ONE FC, Rise, etc) , and 2) Today, there seem to be no such a thing in kickboxing as "a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source" that would have a rating. Zafir94 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Participants seem divided over whether to Keep or Redirect. Only supporter of Delete is nominate
User:Lethweimaster (please sign your statements).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice to speedy renomination. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I was unable to find significant coverage of this geographic coordinate system; most results are mirrors of Wikipedia or the organization who created the system. The only source is primary, after I removed WP:OR regarding the intellectual property claims on this algorithm. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment The page was initially created by the banned user Tobias Conradi ( talk · contribs) in 2004, but according to articleinfo tool, the main contributors are a 99.xx IP geolocating to Mississauga; Krauss ( talk · contribs); Heron ( talk · contribs); and Robocoder ( talk · contribs). I found a discussion from 2013 questioning notability on the talk page:
Notability?
|
---|
Are there independent and reliably published sources that go into depth about this system that we can use to establish its notability? Google scholar found only 9 papers mentioning it, and some of them mention it only very briefly as an example of a grid-based system. One of the sources that does go into depth seems to explicitly argue against notability, calling NAC "another not very popular coordinate system". I hesitate to take more drastic steps with this article after the uproar over the related deletion of Base 30, but its current unsourced state is not acceptable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
|
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It's a technology article that hasn't been significantly improved since 2007 when it was created (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comparison_of_JavaScript_engines&diff=151547395&oldid=149512033). All functions and objects in the article are from before ECMAScript (2009) and any JS engine, that implements ECMAScript (all that are being used are ECMAScript engines), implements all of them. Comparing them is pointless. Listing all the standard functions is not the topic of the article. The current version of ECMAScript is 13, the table in the article goes up to 6. — Updatepedia ( talk) 18:44, 9 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!
23:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Did their PhD 4 years ago, has some seemingly minor awards, created some software packages (including Easystats). Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF, and is probably WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
A shooting among other shootings, of which there are countless every day across the world. When it was created, it was argued on the talk page that this one was notable because of the effects this particular shooting would have on the ongoing conflicts in Malmö. In hindsight, I have been unable to find sources to support this, and a request on the talk page for any sources to back this up has been unanswered for one and a half year. / Julle ( talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editing, BLP issues, disruptive templating and generally uncollaborative editing.(see User talk:Albin Schmitt/Archive 1#August 2018_3). The editor who asserted on the talk page that the article meets notability requirements— 1Kwords (then known as AadaamS)—was blocked indefinitely in December 2021 for being WP:NOTHERE (see ANI thread for details). The latter was also blocked on Swedish-language Wikipedia for two years in October 2021 for misrepresenting sources (see sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia/Arkiv 2021#1Kwords allvarliga brister i källhantering). This may go some way in explaining why the January 2021 request for sources on the talk page has gone unanswered, seeing as they are the principal authors of this article. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"Military career of George S. Patton" is an article we need, but this is not that. This is a big list of all his bling. Half of this article is a timeline of his military career, and the other half is a ribbon bar and copy-pastes of the citations for his notable awards. This is unencyclopedic and a shadow of the article merited by Patton's career. Put succinctly, this is a shrine to Patton and it should thusly be deleted. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
non-notable person, article contains only genealogical data and his father's political positions. Norden1990 ( talk) 21:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Jesse Quin. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Contested prod back in 2013; the person contesting it promised to "improve the quality of the information within," but this has not been done, likely because WP:SIGCOV just does not seem to exist. Checking every permutation of the band name -- ampersand, no ampersand, separate parts -- doesn't turn up anything that is not already covered in the article for Jesse Quin. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 20:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Seemingly WP:NN sister of famous person. There are a number of passing mentions of her in reviews, mentions in books written about her sister, but the only in-depth article I could find about her is already in the article where she was left out of Walter Cronkite's will.
Disclosure: Per the talk page, this article read like a PR piece and I've removed the puffery, unsourced name-dropping and unsourced claims of grandeur, most of which were via association with her sister or other cast members.
WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E seem to apply.
Toddst1 ( talk) 20:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:36, 16 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! 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what the first deletion discussion of this page has reasoned out, but with more detail as I think I have better points for this.
1. The terminology "super galaxy" is used in early astronomy, but does so in a way that not what this article suggests. It refers to what we now know as separate galaxies being originally part of the Milky Way (proposed by Harlow Shapley) and this became obselete by the time we established that there are separate galaxies.
2. The definition that the article suggests – large galaxies – are never used in the astronomical literature to refer to such objects (except from just a few popular science press releases). A quick search at the Astrophysics Data System here yielded only 12 results; with the latest one using the term explicitly is from a paper by de Vaucouleurs in 1953 and more recent ones just search results where they refer to "super galaxy groups" i.e. post-merger groups, and not use them to refer to an individual galaxy.
I hope this issue gets settled. I saw the talk page of this article with its creator lamenting about it. But I am pretty sure I can make a solid discussion regarding this. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
See talk page for my commentary, and why I use the talk page to discuss this. Fxmastermind ( talk) 11:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The term has been used in many books. And I am talking about astronomy, not any of the other uses of the term. The deleter doesn't know this, and my showing this to be true would be original research. How ironic. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
...is an astronomical term used either to describe giant galaxies, formed from multiple galaxies, or to describe superclusters of galaxies.
Moving some of the comments by the page creator here, as he can't seem to follow instructions. From Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination):
"All of the "reasoning" used is pure original research."
Excuse me? I've just used the Astrophysics Data System, a repository of astrophysical journals by SAO/NASA. The phrase "super galaxy" only appeared in 12 papers, none of which refer to a large galaxy as the article suggests. My rebuttal does not constitute WP:OR as what he wants to imply, and as stated on the Wikipedia policy itself, original research is:
...refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
There is overwhelming lack of evidence of its use in the astronomical literature, and the details pointed in the article are just a gross misrepresentation of what the sources actually imply. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Fxmastermind ( talk) 06:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The claim made above, "The term is obsolete and the latest book that uses this terminology is from 1953" is patent nonsense. Aside from the stark fact that the dictionary definition of supergalaxy matches the article definition, the term is used in hundreds of publications, scientific books and articles. A search gets confusing because the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is referred to as the Supergalaxy, which is noted on the article Supergalaxy.
There is a vast amount of literature that used the term as defined in the astronomical sense.
That nobody here knows this, or has done a search, is frankly not surprising. (I don't know if those naked urls will work here or not.)
The biggest bugaboo is the multitude of ways it has been used, over a long period of time. Something an encyclopedic entry would explain in detail. And the page /info/en/?search=Supergalaxy does just that. It explains a multitude of uses, past and present, for the term supergalaxy, (super galaxy) and very rarely super-galaxy. And none these include the aircraft or the games or the bicycle.
It's both amusing and appalling to see such blatant ignorance parading as sage wisdom. Fxmastermind ( talk) 06:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This absurd non discussion is absurd. Seriously. The original research is absurd. Just because somebody here claims --> " Just because a press release used the term 'super galaxy' doesn't mean it's a real category. This term is not in common use in professional astronomy"
--> does not make it true.
What is true, is that the term is used many times.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19870014829/downloads/19870014829.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1575.html
https://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/news-display.cfm?News_ID=963
You can claim all you want "it is not used", and refuse to look at those links. And then you can delete the article, but that is just pure ignorance at work here.
in 2008 I linked to a vast number of papers and official NASA sites using the term, and it litteraly didn't matter. Wikipedia editors know more than NASA. Which is the most blatant original research possible here. Fxmastermind ( talk) 12:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
The result was redirect to IJustine. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Has been arbitrarily moved from Draftspace after the last decline of 9th Feb where TipsyElephant said "Demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE secondary sources that discuss the subject in some depth. For instance, a few articles that dedicate a couple paragraphs to discussing the podcast that are published by reputable news sources that have no connection with the podcast (i.e. The A.V. Club, Polygon, or The Hollywood Reporter). Sources that don't normally contribute to notability include WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:BLOGS, WP:YOUTUBE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. When editing Wikipedia pages about podcasts I almost always remove lists of notable guests and I don't see any reason an arbitrary list of guests should be included in this instance. Also, please read WP:REFBOMB. You shouldn't need six references to verify a single uncontroversial statement." - Still suffers from all of this, with only 1 reference being anywhere near reliable enough, all others are either YouTube or trying to rely on (somewhat) inherent notability of the guests. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 19:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Could not verify the existence of a settlement or community at this location. Cited sources describe a railroad siding only. – dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Slightly different enough that it's not a G4, but exact same issues remain from July, August AfDs. If consensus remains to delete, advise SALT to enforce AfC Star Mississippi 16:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of a community, appears to have been a siding with a few railroad-related buildings. – dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The person doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF and WP:GNG. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
-- Shimonshameel ( talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC) — Shimonshameel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Enos733 (
talk)
16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Notability not shown here nor reliable sources. Online search won't help much. Not notable as a subsidiary of Franke Holding, could be merged with parent company though 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E)
15:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Not sure what went wrong with my search, perhaps a typo in the name? Clearly was wrong on this nom. Apologies/thanks for improvement. Star Mississippi 17:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm unable to find reviews of his books, nor indications he's well cited enough to pass author or academic notability. Star Mississippi 14:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Existing sources in the article are either not wp:sigcov or not reliable. The sources I could find like this, [22] are not wp:is. My bold guess after tagging the article in Oct 21 [23], is that the subject is not notable. — hako9 ( talk) 12:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural Keep. This nomination was done by a sockpuppet and even after 2 relistings, there are no votes supporting deletion so I've closed this discussion as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:PROMO, not sufficient reliable sources provided in the article. Oliver Virk ( talk) 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DatGuy
Talk
Contribs
12:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, I do not see that this crime is remarkable enough for an article. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was Move and rescope. Withdrawing to move and rescope. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy renomination after no-consensus close.
Arguments for keep in previous AfD were weak, and sources produced were unreliable, trivial, or both. As I said in the previous AfD, I would be fine with a redirect to IFAF Africa or other suitable target. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ARTIST TheLongTone ( talk) 13:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Not passing WP:ANYBIO; deputies of the banks are not notable. looks like advertisement. WP:PROMO, cross-wiki spam. Russian Wikipedia is marked as Undisclosed paid editing and is being AfDed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Oliver Virk ( talk) 11:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E)
13:46, 16 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! 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is somewhat "cool" list, if mostly unreferenced (and listing many seemingly non-notable documentaries) but even after cleanup I am afraid it fails WP:NLIST. My BEFORE found many sources about Cinema of North Korea, but nothing about foreign films about North Korea (as a group). The broad scope of this list is a problem, as it presumably should also include North Korean films set in North Korea (currently partially covered in the List of North Korean films). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 16 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! 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page with two entries. The first, if it were on its own as a redirect, would fail WP:FORRED; similarly, it isn't the job of disambiguation pages to translate arbitrary non-English terms to English.That leaves the other entry which, if worthwhile to have on Wikipedia at all, should be a redirect, as we can't have a disambiguation page with one entry. Also, I don't know if this is relevant, but "US ONO" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Ontario, Oregon article. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
PS: Now I see the page was originally a redirect to United States. If I'd seen it then, I'd have submitted it to Rfd for WP:FORRED. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Matt Forbeck. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Previous contested PROD, obviously fails WP:GNG. There's a long discussion here, pinging participants User:Piotrus and User:Leitmotiv. Even if we assume WP:AGF that the Scrye guide, which just runs two pages, is a proper review per Leitmotiv, which there's scarce evidence, we have just one ref. The discussion had an agreement that ref 1, The Official Price Guide, is non-SIGCOV as it's too short, nor is ref 3's trivial 1-sentence coverage. So, IMHO this should be deleted, as there's no decent merge/redirect target, only option would to be redirect/merge to the designer. VickKiang ( talk) 08:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The page has references from YouTube. Also this article is of the person who is not followed by many. References of not known sources is against the Wikipedia guidelines. A man born in India is denouncing something of the country which is ten thousand miles away from him, is just for publicity which has nothing to do with his religious thoughts. Also this person is uneducated and therefore has is a layman just like others. If Wikipedia will start writing articles of such persons then every ones' page will be in Wikipedia. It is therefore highly recommended for speedy deflection. he is totally ignorant having no knowledge of religion, moreover he has very few followers that too for minting money from them, so he don't deserve to be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabirpaswal ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Taurus–Littrow. Consensus not to have the article. Reasonable of redirect established when challenged. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Extremely minor lunar crater of only 210 metres in diameter, was encountered by Apollo 17 astronauts but was not the subject of any special attention besides being named as a result of that. There does not appear to be any scientific studies on it that would cause it to pass WP:GNG, a search on Google Scholar only brought up results for the Mercurian crater of the same name, which is far more prominent. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E)
04:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.
PROD removed with "take it to AFD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was redirect to Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 50 metre freestyle. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:29, 16 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable band, there is very little info about them online. 747pilot ( talk) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Searching online "ТТ-34" (using the Cyrillic character te instead of the Latin letter T, turns up more content, some of which goes beyond passing reference. No judgement on the quality of the sources though...
They're also apparently in the (not online) Энцыклапедыя беларускай папулярнай музыкі (Encyclopedia of Belarusian popular music). Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No sources, not verifiable.
Oliver Virk (
talk) 10:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Sock strike.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Aspiring kickboxer. Doesn't appear to meet the current WP:NKICK or WP:NBOXING and I don't believe the existing coverage meets WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV. Being daughter to a notable person does not constitute notability. However, she's is mentioned in her father’s articles.
Additionally, one could suggest that WP:NKICK criteria is reviewed? 1) There is only a few kickboxers these days that would win Raja and Lumpinee titles (so what happens with Glory, ONE FC, Rise, etc) , and 2) Today, there seem to be no such a thing in kickboxing as "a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source" that would have a rating. Zafir94 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Participants seem divided over whether to Keep or Redirect. Only supporter of Delete is nominate
User:Lethweimaster (please sign your statements).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice to speedy renomination. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I was unable to find significant coverage of this geographic coordinate system; most results are mirrors of Wikipedia or the organization who created the system. The only source is primary, after I removed WP:OR regarding the intellectual property claims on this algorithm. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment The page was initially created by the banned user Tobias Conradi ( talk · contribs) in 2004, but according to articleinfo tool, the main contributors are a 99.xx IP geolocating to Mississauga; Krauss ( talk · contribs); Heron ( talk · contribs); and Robocoder ( talk · contribs). I found a discussion from 2013 questioning notability on the talk page:
Notability?
|
---|
Are there independent and reliably published sources that go into depth about this system that we can use to establish its notability? Google scholar found only 9 papers mentioning it, and some of them mention it only very briefly as an example of a grid-based system. One of the sources that does go into depth seems to explicitly argue against notability, calling NAC "another not very popular coordinate system". I hesitate to take more drastic steps with this article after the uproar over the related deletion of Base 30, but its current unsourced state is not acceptable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
|
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It's a technology article that hasn't been significantly improved since 2007 when it was created (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comparison_of_JavaScript_engines&diff=151547395&oldid=149512033). All functions and objects in the article are from before ECMAScript (2009) and any JS engine, that implements ECMAScript (all that are being used are ECMAScript engines), implements all of them. Comparing them is pointless. Listing all the standard functions is not the topic of the article. The current version of ECMAScript is 13, the table in the article goes up to 6. — Updatepedia ( talk) 18:44, 9 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!
23:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Did their PhD 4 years ago, has some seemingly minor awards, created some software packages (including Easystats). Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF, and is probably WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
A shooting among other shootings, of which there are countless every day across the world. When it was created, it was argued on the talk page that this one was notable because of the effects this particular shooting would have on the ongoing conflicts in Malmö. In hindsight, I have been unable to find sources to support this, and a request on the talk page for any sources to back this up has been unanswered for one and a half year. / Julle ( talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Persistent disruptive editing, BLP issues, disruptive templating and generally uncollaborative editing.(see User talk:Albin Schmitt/Archive 1#August 2018_3). The editor who asserted on the talk page that the article meets notability requirements— 1Kwords (then known as AadaamS)—was blocked indefinitely in December 2021 for being WP:NOTHERE (see ANI thread for details). The latter was also blocked on Swedish-language Wikipedia for two years in October 2021 for misrepresenting sources (see sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia/Arkiv 2021#1Kwords allvarliga brister i källhantering). This may go some way in explaining why the January 2021 request for sources on the talk page has gone unanswered, seeing as they are the principal authors of this article. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"Military career of George S. Patton" is an article we need, but this is not that. This is a big list of all his bling. Half of this article is a timeline of his military career, and the other half is a ribbon bar and copy-pastes of the citations for his notable awards. This is unencyclopedic and a shadow of the article merited by Patton's career. Put succinctly, this is a shrine to Patton and it should thusly be deleted. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
non-notable person, article contains only genealogical data and his father's political positions. Norden1990 ( talk) 21:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Jesse Quin. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Contested prod back in 2013; the person contesting it promised to "improve the quality of the information within," but this has not been done, likely because WP:SIGCOV just does not seem to exist. Checking every permutation of the band name -- ampersand, no ampersand, separate parts -- doesn't turn up anything that is not already covered in the article for Jesse Quin. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 20:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Seemingly WP:NN sister of famous person. There are a number of passing mentions of her in reviews, mentions in books written about her sister, but the only in-depth article I could find about her is already in the article where she was left out of Walter Cronkite's will.
Disclosure: Per the talk page, this article read like a PR piece and I've removed the puffery, unsourced name-dropping and unsourced claims of grandeur, most of which were via association with her sister or other cast members.
WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E seem to apply.
Toddst1 ( talk) 20:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:36, 16 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! 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what the first deletion discussion of this page has reasoned out, but with more detail as I think I have better points for this.
1. The terminology "super galaxy" is used in early astronomy, but does so in a way that not what this article suggests. It refers to what we now know as separate galaxies being originally part of the Milky Way (proposed by Harlow Shapley) and this became obselete by the time we established that there are separate galaxies.
2. The definition that the article suggests – large galaxies – are never used in the astronomical literature to refer to such objects (except from just a few popular science press releases). A quick search at the Astrophysics Data System here yielded only 12 results; with the latest one using the term explicitly is from a paper by de Vaucouleurs in 1953 and more recent ones just search results where they refer to "super galaxy groups" i.e. post-merger groups, and not use them to refer to an individual galaxy.
I hope this issue gets settled. I saw the talk page of this article with its creator lamenting about it. But I am pretty sure I can make a solid discussion regarding this. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
See talk page for my commentary, and why I use the talk page to discuss this. Fxmastermind ( talk) 11:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The term has been used in many books. And I am talking about astronomy, not any of the other uses of the term. The deleter doesn't know this, and my showing this to be true would be original research. How ironic. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
...is an astronomical term used either to describe giant galaxies, formed from multiple galaxies, or to describe superclusters of galaxies.
Moving some of the comments by the page creator here, as he can't seem to follow instructions. From Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination):
"All of the "reasoning" used is pure original research."
Excuse me? I've just used the Astrophysics Data System, a repository of astrophysical journals by SAO/NASA. The phrase "super galaxy" only appeared in 12 papers, none of which refer to a large galaxy as the article suggests. My rebuttal does not constitute WP:OR as what he wants to imply, and as stated on the Wikipedia policy itself, original research is:
...refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
There is overwhelming lack of evidence of its use in the astronomical literature, and the details pointed in the article are just a gross misrepresentation of what the sources actually imply. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Fxmastermind ( talk) 06:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The claim made above, "The term is obsolete and the latest book that uses this terminology is from 1953" is patent nonsense. Aside from the stark fact that the dictionary definition of supergalaxy matches the article definition, the term is used in hundreds of publications, scientific books and articles. A search gets confusing because the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is referred to as the Supergalaxy, which is noted on the article Supergalaxy.
There is a vast amount of literature that used the term as defined in the astronomical sense.
That nobody here knows this, or has done a search, is frankly not surprising. (I don't know if those naked urls will work here or not.)
The biggest bugaboo is the multitude of ways it has been used, over a long period of time. Something an encyclopedic entry would explain in detail. And the page /info/en/?search=Supergalaxy does just that. It explains a multitude of uses, past and present, for the term supergalaxy, (super galaxy) and very rarely super-galaxy. And none these include the aircraft or the games or the bicycle.
It's both amusing and appalling to see such blatant ignorance parading as sage wisdom. Fxmastermind ( talk) 06:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This absurd non discussion is absurd. Seriously. The original research is absurd. Just because somebody here claims --> " Just because a press release used the term 'super galaxy' doesn't mean it's a real category. This term is not in common use in professional astronomy"
--> does not make it true.
What is true, is that the term is used many times.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19870014829/downloads/19870014829.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1575.html
https://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/news-display.cfm?News_ID=963
You can claim all you want "it is not used", and refuse to look at those links. And then you can delete the article, but that is just pure ignorance at work here.
in 2008 I linked to a vast number of papers and official NASA sites using the term, and it litteraly didn't matter. Wikipedia editors know more than NASA. Which is the most blatant original research possible here. Fxmastermind ( talk) 12:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
The result was redirect to IJustine. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Has been arbitrarily moved from Draftspace after the last decline of 9th Feb where TipsyElephant said "Demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE secondary sources that discuss the subject in some depth. For instance, a few articles that dedicate a couple paragraphs to discussing the podcast that are published by reputable news sources that have no connection with the podcast (i.e. The A.V. Club, Polygon, or The Hollywood Reporter). Sources that don't normally contribute to notability include WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:BLOGS, WP:YOUTUBE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. When editing Wikipedia pages about podcasts I almost always remove lists of notable guests and I don't see any reason an arbitrary list of guests should be included in this instance. Also, please read WP:REFBOMB. You shouldn't need six references to verify a single uncontroversial statement." - Still suffers from all of this, with only 1 reference being anywhere near reliable enough, all others are either YouTube or trying to rely on (somewhat) inherent notability of the guests. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 19:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Could not verify the existence of a settlement or community at this location. Cited sources describe a railroad siding only. – dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Slightly different enough that it's not a G4, but exact same issues remain from July, August AfDs. If consensus remains to delete, advise SALT to enforce AfC Star Mississippi 16:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of a community, appears to have been a siding with a few railroad-related buildings. – dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The person doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF and WP:GNG. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
-- Shimonshameel ( talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC) — Shimonshameel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Enos733 (
talk)
16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Notability not shown here nor reliable sources. Online search won't help much. Not notable as a subsidiary of Franke Holding, could be merged with parent company though 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E)
15:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Not sure what went wrong with my search, perhaps a typo in the name? Clearly was wrong on this nom. Apologies/thanks for improvement. Star Mississippi 17:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm unable to find reviews of his books, nor indications he's well cited enough to pass author or academic notability. Star Mississippi 14:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Existing sources in the article are either not wp:sigcov or not reliable. The sources I could find like this, [22] are not wp:is. My bold guess after tagging the article in Oct 21 [23], is that the subject is not notable. — hako9 ( talk) 12:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Procedural Keep. This nomination was done by a sockpuppet and even after 2 relistings, there are no votes supporting deletion so I've closed this discussion as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:PROMO, not sufficient reliable sources provided in the article. Oliver Virk ( talk) 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DatGuy
Talk
Contribs
12:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, I do not see that this crime is remarkable enough for an article. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was Move and rescope. Withdrawing to move and rescope. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy renomination after no-consensus close.
Arguments for keep in previous AfD were weak, and sources produced were unreliable, trivial, or both. As I said in the previous AfD, I would be fine with a redirect to IFAF Africa or other suitable target. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:ARTIST TheLongTone ( talk) 13:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Not passing WP:ANYBIO; deputies of the banks are not notable. looks like advertisement. WP:PROMO, cross-wiki spam. Russian Wikipedia is marked as Undisclosed paid editing and is being AfDed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Oliver Virk ( talk) 11:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E)
13:46, 16 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! 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is somewhat "cool" list, if mostly unreferenced (and listing many seemingly non-notable documentaries) but even after cleanup I am afraid it fails WP:NLIST. My BEFORE found many sources about Cinema of North Korea, but nothing about foreign films about North Korea (as a group). The broad scope of this list is a problem, as it presumably should also include North Korean films set in North Korea (currently partially covered in the List of North Korean films). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 16 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! 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page with two entries. The first, if it were on its own as a redirect, would fail WP:FORRED; similarly, it isn't the job of disambiguation pages to translate arbitrary non-English terms to English.That leaves the other entry which, if worthwhile to have on Wikipedia at all, should be a redirect, as we can't have a disambiguation page with one entry. Also, I don't know if this is relevant, but "US ONO" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Ontario, Oregon article. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
PS: Now I see the page was originally a redirect to United States. If I'd seen it then, I'd have submitted it to Rfd for WP:FORRED. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Matt Forbeck. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Previous contested PROD, obviously fails WP:GNG. There's a long discussion here, pinging participants User:Piotrus and User:Leitmotiv. Even if we assume WP:AGF that the Scrye guide, which just runs two pages, is a proper review per Leitmotiv, which there's scarce evidence, we have just one ref. The discussion had an agreement that ref 1, The Official Price Guide, is non-SIGCOV as it's too short, nor is ref 3's trivial 1-sentence coverage. So, IMHO this should be deleted, as there's no decent merge/redirect target, only option would to be redirect/merge to the designer. VickKiang ( talk) 08:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The page has references from YouTube. Also this article is of the person who is not followed by many. References of not known sources is against the Wikipedia guidelines. A man born in India is denouncing something of the country which is ten thousand miles away from him, is just for publicity which has nothing to do with his religious thoughts. Also this person is uneducated and therefore has is a layman just like others. If Wikipedia will start writing articles of such persons then every ones' page will be in Wikipedia. It is therefore highly recommended for speedy deflection. he is totally ignorant having no knowledge of religion, moreover he has very few followers that too for minting money from them, so he don't deserve to be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabirpaswal ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Taurus–Littrow. Consensus not to have the article. Reasonable of redirect established when challenged. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Extremely minor lunar crater of only 210 metres in diameter, was encountered by Apollo 17 astronauts but was not the subject of any special attention besides being named as a result of that. There does not appear to be any scientific studies on it that would cause it to pass WP:GNG, a search on Google Scholar only brought up results for the Mercurian crater of the same name, which is far more prominent. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E)
04:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.
PROD removed with "take it to AFD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)