![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
SPA creation for whom I cannot find any evidence of notability as an actor. Likely 2013 copypasta but I cannot find the source. Note: he is not the NASA scientist for whom there is sourcing Star Mississippi 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consideration of a possible article rename should occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBASIC, isn't notable as they're the wife of someone who was a ruler. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:32, 19 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! 23:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
No claim to notability, and no sources turn up on a search. Alyo ( chat· edits) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mental illness portrayed in media. North America 1000 23:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Topic has heavy overlap with Mental illness portrayed in media. Should be merged to that one. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article about a film series, with no discernible claim to passing
WP:NFO. The only notability claim on offer here is that the series exists, and overall the article seems much more concerned with
coatracking some POV opinions about the life and work of one of the films' subjects than it does with talking about the film about him as a film, and even on a Google search I can't find any
reliable source coverage about the series -- it isn't even listed in the director's IMDb profile, in fact, and other than wikimirrors his own
self-published website about himself is the only thing I could find that connected him to any film of this title at all.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Iranian media coverage can find some actual sourcing to upgrade this with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sources.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––
FormalDude
(talk)
21:52, 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!
21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets notability standards. Per the discussion herein, I am adding the {{ Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America 1000 23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for no original research and does not meet WP:BIO Additionally, the content is advertising for self-published material and non-reviewed research. Secondary sources are not verifiable and express the author's opinions (interviews). Statements on secondary sources are not verified by newspapers. The article is not neutral. It advocates for the author's viewpoint and includes personal opinions. Doesn’t meet additional WP:BIO criteria for academics and victims of crime. Other editors have pointed out problems with guidelines, view history and discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaesf ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:23, 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!
21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent sources about the committee to show it passes GNG. Lots of mentions, but it's a search committee and gets the type of limited coverage you would expect of such an organization, with very little lasting coverage. Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 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!
23:25, 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!
21:24, 19 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. Star Mississippi 01:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Too Early to create. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, aircraft already inducted. Article passes GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 7 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, 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!
21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Byju's. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Primary Investment News, and change in leadership news. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 22:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 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!
23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider a Merge. The last AFD closure was a redirect from this page to
Byju's but I see it was undone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Was mentioned in the discussion of VisualBoyAdvance and this article also fails GNG as well. The Ars Technica article is just a trivial mention and the article has lacked WP:SIGCOV since its 2003 inception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
ZSNES is by far the most unpleasant-looking emulator in this group, but what it lacks in beauty it makes up for with a simple, uncluttered, interface and superb quality, with its ability to emulate the more complicated and complex SNES hardware features, such as the SuperFX co-processor chip ... . There are also some other excellent features ... .Skynxnex ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep but potentially rescope/target. There is consensus that a merger isn't appropriate due to the difference in time periods, but also appears to be consensus that the content needs changing, which can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Article is mostly a list of people who held the title while there is an entire article on this same topic see Prince of Dai. Merging the two articles would be the best use of resources. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Merge two articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:44, 19 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. North America 1000 23:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches in Thai came back with trivial coverage such as passing mentions in Super Sub Thailand and Siamrath. I did find an article about him in Smmsport but it's only a sentence long and clearly not enough for GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Suscipe. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE search yielded no independent material for this hymn outside lyrics appears on lyric hosting sites; potentially a candidate for delete-and-merge to Suscipe. Pbritti ( talk) 18:05, 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!
20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The only "keep" argument is "Enough blue links to make it a valid list", but none of our inclusion criteria for lists depend on the number of blue links in them. Sandstein 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable topic for a list and is too broad for a Wikipedia list. Gabe114 ( talk) 17:18, 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!
20:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Bit part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage, annoucements, PR, interviews. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 16:54, 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!
20:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
[has] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productionsis required- how are supporting roles significant? VickKiang 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Safeway Inc.. Star Mississippi 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Notability is not proven by Google and available sources inside the page. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 11:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 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!
20:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting that a draft for the article exists that may be submitted in the usual way in due course. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Pope's Exorcist
Teaser stub about unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability or general notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This stub does not say that production has happened, let alone that it was notable. The references are either teasers saying that there will be a film, or are about or by the late person that the movie is about.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | imdb.com | IMDB summary of movie | Yes | No | No | No |
2 | msn.com | Announcement of planned film | Yes | No | Yes | No |
3 | abcnews.com | An interview with the real-life exorcist | Yes | Not about the film | Yes | Yes, but not about the film |
4 | worldcat.org | Listing of a book by the real-life exorcist | Yes | Not about the film | Yes | No |
5 | worldcat.org | Listing of another book by the real-life exorcist | Yes | Not about the film | Yes | No |
The notability of Gabriele Amorth is not in dispute; we already have an article about him. This stub says nothing about the film except that it doesn't yet exist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Only "source" originally offered was user-generated IMDB which has her only down for two roles, neither appearing notable or significant. De-PRODed without explanation or improvements made. Searches just return her being associated with broadcasts of the respective films as a credit without any WP:SIGCOV. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 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! 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a film series, not reliably sourcing any serious claim to passing WP:NFO. This makes no serious notability claim besides being a thing that exists, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Article about a film, not
reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for films. This makes absolutely no notability claim at all besides purportedly existing; at the time of its creation in 2006, it tried for "won an award at a minor film festival", but that got removed within two days as it wasn't verified by the source that had been used to support it, and has never returned since.
The only footnote here is its own deadlinked
self-published website about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about the film in any
WP:GNG-worthy sources shown at all. And for added bonus, I can't find any media coverage, or even an IMDb profile, on Google -- literally all I can find is
this primary source staff profile and a bunch of wikimirrors.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to pass GNG on the sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:51, 19 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Article about an unreleased film, not
properly sourced as having any serious claim to passing our notability criteria for films. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page -- the notability test isn't just that the film exists, but that the film has been the subject of media coverage to establish its significance. But this is a crowdfunded independent film that never saw any real commercial distribution at all -- it received one self-funded screening at a theatre not very far away from the filmmaker's own hometown, and that's it.
And for sourcing, 13 of the 17 footnotes here are
primary sources (Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, YouTube,
user-generated discussion boards, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all -- and of the just four hits that are from real media, they're all just "local film student tries to make film" in the filmmaker's own local media, not adding up to any reason why this otherwise unreleased film would have any enduring nationalized or internationalized significance seven years later.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just a tiny smattering of coverage in and around the filmmaker's own hometown.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was Redirect restored. Star Mississippi 01:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
A one liner, unreferenced, definition. Should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT Mr.weedle ( talk) 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability per WP:ATHLETE Mr.weedle ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
See WP:NSONG. Song has not appeared on any charts, written and performed by musicians that are not notable. 162 etc. ( talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
“You can feel GMA’s sincerity in reaching out to the needy. It is not only for publicity or ratings, they truly wanted to make a difference. And their artists reflect the values they hold dearly. Kapuso forever!”
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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Sources found on Google News are either press releases, unreliable, insignificant coverage, etc. Sungodtemple ( talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete. It's not notable, nor RS are there. There are some news in Google search however they are not sufficient. -- Assirian cat ( talk) 10:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is delete by strength of argument. The only source presented is not reliable, and whether it is of any use for the current topic is shaky. If this is truly an actual settlement verifiable by reliable sources, an article of equal length could be built with little additional volunteer effort. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:HOAX. The already dubious references cited in the article do not mention the supposed village at all, nor am I able to find a single source/RS which even mentions it. The statement "It is unknown if Uskut is now under Pakistani administration. The Delhi based SIA conducted raids on Uskut and Uri because both of the villages were under militant control." is also a blatant hoax by the creator of this article, who has already created hoax articles on other wikis (e.g. simplewiki). Gotitbro ( talk) 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tarand (animal). Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears there was a previous discussion to merge this page with Tarand (animal). I am bringing this back to the attention of other editors, as both seem to be variations on the same creature (mythical or otherwise). It may be necessary to delete this page and merge any notable material to the Tarand page, maintaining a redirect if necessary (likely). Thoughts? TNstingray ( talk) 12:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Merman#Folklore elsewhere. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete entirely TNstingray ( talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Grizzly bear. If an entity is considered by science to be a cryptid, we need sources discussing it as a cryptid; otherwise we risk spreading pseudoscience. As such I'm inclined to give very early sources much less weight, and consensus is against a standalone article even otherwise. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Most of this page is entirely unsourced, with the only source being a general study into the variations of North American bears, and this is not explicitly connected to the subject matter of MacFarlane's bear. Delete entirely, though a redirect could be maintained to List of individual bears if necessary. TNstingray ( talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Merriam, Clinton H. 1918. Review of the grizzly and big brown bears of North America (genus Ursus). North American Fauna 41: 1-136). This happens all the time, and if we dignified each instance with an article then we would have 86 articles for the brown bear alone. For that species, the post-genetics winnowing down to the current state is succinctly stated in one paragraph at Grizzly_bear#Ursus_arctos. That's all the coverage it should merit. If people think that "Monster Quest" (by golly) and this demand extra mention, then by all means add one sentence there. But definitely no separate article required. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🏳🌈 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This page does not currently justify its own existence, with the only sources being the book itself and another primary source that might not actually support the claim, but instead be just another example of myths presented in a natural history fashion. This page needs to be deleted, though I can also understand an argument for blanking and redirecting to the original author. Thoughts? TNstingray ( talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is a single sentence for the lead ("A Cello Christmas is the fifth studio album by Tina Guo") and a track listing. Not shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM at this point in time. Hey man im josh ( talk) 11:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Uses largely promotional sources. This book review [11] in a click bait site and this brief discussion [12] are all the coverage she has. GNG and AUTHOR not met. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources to demonstrate how these meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:45, 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!
08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Policy-based opinions are uniformly in favor of deletion. A list needs a consistent definition for inclusion, and such has not been supplied. The concerns about original research have not been resolved. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no definition of a 'non-sovereign country'. Therefore such a list cannot exist, it is WP:OR. If there is a source that 'non-sovereign country' means dependent territory then I could redirect there. Privybst ( talk) 07:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
recognised as countries by their respective sovereign statesand
non-sovereign "nations" that are recognised as such either by their respective sovereign state or internationallyare essentially meaningless. There is no "country" or "nation" status that exists in any sense that can meaningfully be applied internationally, except that of a sovereign state. The statuses of the entities in the list are not at all the same, while entities that do have the same status are not treated as parallel. It's a bit like making a list of Indians that includes both Mahatma Gandhi and Pocahontas, but excludes both Sacagawea and Srinivasa Ramanujan as insufficiently "Indian".
Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point.
Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus, and is therefore not an SPA.
Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration.
A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose."
Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.. In particular this list relies upon WP:SYNTH because it relies on disparate definitions of what constitutes a country. Although some commentators above seem to understand a country to be co-extensive with a state, English usage has other definitions, and it is clear that there are countries that are not states, but incorporated in states, or in the purview of states. Nevertheless the definition of country varies and is often disputed. Sources in this article demonstrate the grey areas but do not prove these are countries. UK home nations are countries by one definition, and the source shows they have ISO country codes (which is not quite saying that the ISO recognises them as countries, despite what the page says). But different inclusion criteria are used for different entries and others (such as Texas per Peter Kingiron) are excluded arbitrarily simply because no one (much) calls them a country. Inclusion based on equivocal definitions of countries is WP:SYNTH and an attempt to limit the definition to one single definition would be WP:OR so I think this list is doomed to failure, and sadly must be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
same locationyou are talking about a country of seven million people and different telcos most of which having their registered addresses in just a few neighbourhoods of the country; and for
substantive edit historyyou are talking about non-static IP addresses assigned by these telcos. 220.246.37.189 ( talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
the same city" in question here is actually a territory which contains some other towns and villages with a total number of several million inhabitants. 1.36.63.143 ( talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It looks quite a bit WP:TOOSOON, at best, for academic notability for this 2016 PhD. He has one authored book, but I'm not finding reviews in reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. No other sign of notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 06:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. If it is cleaned up in short order, it can be restored to mainspace in short order.
BD2412
T
05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Apparently machine translated article from Arabic. Significant details are being lost in the translation. For instance, Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun becomes "Boovers" in this translation. Parts of the article are completely not understandable because sentences run on forever with no punctuation. Better to nuke it and start again. Schierbecker ( talk) 05:59, 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!
06:05, 19 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! 06:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails to establish notability (all database sources). Only source found was a database book mention. DareshMohan ( talk) 06:01, 19 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! 06:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The film released in 2010 and surprisingly has no reviews or no sourcing to establish its notability. Found one book source and nothing else. DareshMohan ( talk) 05:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
A list with only two elements, both of which are ‘unusual’ (the Antiquities Museum may screen films but isn’t a commercial cinema, the Shchors cinema is no longer a cinema ). Wikipedia isn’t a directory, but in any case neither of the listed entities are actually cinemas. Mccapra ( talk) 03:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Thor (band)#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM, is solely reliant on a single reliable source. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Thor (band)#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM, is solely reliant on a single source. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Dictionary definition, see WP:NOTDICT. I do not think a redirect is appropriate, as the concept of a spin-off is not general to TV, and there is at least one TV series called The Parent Show it could be confused with. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 03:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Currently sourced by primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:57, 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!
02:41, 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!
02:43, 19 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. North America 1000 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Article also lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:51, 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!
02:41, 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!
02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing enough in the way of credits and notice to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
SPA creation for whom I cannot find any evidence of notability as an actor. Likely 2013 copypasta but I cannot find the source. Note: he is not the NASA scientist for whom there is sourcing Star Mississippi 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consideration of a possible article rename should occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBASIC, isn't notable as they're the wife of someone who was a ruler. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:32, 19 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! 23:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
No claim to notability, and no sources turn up on a search. Alyo ( chat· edits) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mental illness portrayed in media. North America 1000 23:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Topic has heavy overlap with Mental illness portrayed in media. Should be merged to that one. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article about a film series, with no discernible claim to passing
WP:NFO. The only notability claim on offer here is that the series exists, and overall the article seems much more concerned with
coatracking some POV opinions about the life and work of one of the films' subjects than it does with talking about the film about him as a film, and even on a Google search I can't find any
reliable source coverage about the series -- it isn't even listed in the director's IMDb profile, in fact, and other than wikimirrors his own
self-published website about himself is the only thing I could find that connected him to any film of this title at all.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Iranian media coverage can find some actual sourcing to upgrade this with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sources.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––
FormalDude
(talk)
21:52, 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!
21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets notability standards. Per the discussion herein, I am adding the {{ Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America 1000 23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for no original research and does not meet WP:BIO Additionally, the content is advertising for self-published material and non-reviewed research. Secondary sources are not verifiable and express the author's opinions (interviews). Statements on secondary sources are not verified by newspapers. The article is not neutral. It advocates for the author's viewpoint and includes personal opinions. Doesn’t meet additional WP:BIO criteria for academics and victims of crime. Other editors have pointed out problems with guidelines, view history and discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaesf ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:23, 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!
21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent sources about the committee to show it passes GNG. Lots of mentions, but it's a search committee and gets the type of limited coverage you would expect of such an organization, with very little lasting coverage. Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 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!
23:25, 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!
21:24, 19 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. Star Mississippi 01:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Too Early to create. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep, aircraft already inducted. Article passes GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 7 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, 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!
21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Byju's. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Primary Investment News, and change in leadership news. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 22:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:44, 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!
23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider a Merge. The last AFD closure was a redirect from this page to
Byju's but I see it was undone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Was mentioned in the discussion of VisualBoyAdvance and this article also fails GNG as well. The Ars Technica article is just a trivial mention and the article has lacked WP:SIGCOV since its 2003 inception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
ZSNES is by far the most unpleasant-looking emulator in this group, but what it lacks in beauty it makes up for with a simple, uncluttered, interface and superb quality, with its ability to emulate the more complicated and complex SNES hardware features, such as the SuperFX co-processor chip ... . There are also some other excellent features ... .Skynxnex ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep but potentially rescope/target. There is consensus that a merger isn't appropriate due to the difference in time periods, but also appears to be consensus that the content needs changing, which can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Article is mostly a list of people who held the title while there is an entire article on this same topic see Prince of Dai. Merging the two articles would be the best use of resources. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Merge two articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:44, 19 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. North America 1000 23:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches in Thai came back with trivial coverage such as passing mentions in Super Sub Thailand and Siamrath. I did find an article about him in Smmsport but it's only a sentence long and clearly not enough for GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Suscipe. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
A WP:BEFORE search yielded no independent material for this hymn outside lyrics appears on lyric hosting sites; potentially a candidate for delete-and-merge to Suscipe. Pbritti ( talk) 18:05, 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!
20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. The only "keep" argument is "Enough blue links to make it a valid list", but none of our inclusion criteria for lists depend on the number of blue links in them. Sandstein 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable topic for a list and is too broad for a Wikipedia list. Gabe114 ( talk) 17:18, 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!
20:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Bit part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage, annoucements, PR, interviews. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 16:54, 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!
20:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
[has] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productionsis required- how are supporting roles significant? VickKiang 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Safeway Inc.. Star Mississippi 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Notability is not proven by Google and available sources inside the page. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 11:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 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!
20:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting that a draft for the article exists that may be submitted in the usual way in due course. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Pope's Exorcist
Teaser stub about unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability or general notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This stub does not say that production has happened, let alone that it was notable. The references are either teasers saying that there will be a film, or are about or by the late person that the movie is about.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | imdb.com | IMDB summary of movie | Yes | No | No | No |
2 | msn.com | Announcement of planned film | Yes | No | Yes | No |
3 | abcnews.com | An interview with the real-life exorcist | Yes | Not about the film | Yes | Yes, but not about the film |
4 | worldcat.org | Listing of a book by the real-life exorcist | Yes | Not about the film | Yes | No |
5 | worldcat.org | Listing of another book by the real-life exorcist | Yes | Not about the film | Yes | No |
The notability of Gabriele Amorth is not in dispute; we already have an article about him. This stub says nothing about the film except that it doesn't yet exist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Only "source" originally offered was user-generated IMDB which has her only down for two roles, neither appearing notable or significant. De-PRODed without explanation or improvements made. Searches just return her being associated with broadcasts of the respective films as a credit without any WP:SIGCOV. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 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! 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a film series, not reliably sourcing any serious claim to passing WP:NFO. This makes no serious notability claim besides being a thing that exists, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Article about a film, not
reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for films. This makes absolutely no notability claim at all besides purportedly existing; at the time of its creation in 2006, it tried for "won an award at a minor film festival", but that got removed within two days as it wasn't verified by the source that had been used to support it, and has never returned since.
The only footnote here is its own deadlinked
self-published website about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about the film in any
WP:GNG-worthy sources shown at all. And for added bonus, I can't find any media coverage, or even an IMDb profile, on Google -- literally all I can find is
this primary source staff profile and a bunch of wikimirrors.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to pass GNG on the sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:51, 19 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Article about an unreleased film, not
properly sourced as having any serious claim to passing our notability criteria for films. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page -- the notability test isn't just that the film exists, but that the film has been the subject of media coverage to establish its significance. But this is a crowdfunded independent film that never saw any real commercial distribution at all -- it received one self-funded screening at a theatre not very far away from the filmmaker's own hometown, and that's it.
And for sourcing, 13 of the 17 footnotes here are
primary sources (Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, YouTube,
user-generated discussion boards, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all -- and of the just four hits that are from real media, they're all just "local film student tries to make film" in the filmmaker's own local media, not adding up to any reason why this otherwise unreleased film would have any enduring nationalized or internationalized significance seven years later.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just a tiny smattering of coverage in and around the filmmaker's own hometown.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was Redirect restored. Star Mississippi 01:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
A one liner, unreferenced, definition. Should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT Mr.weedle ( talk) 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability per WP:ATHLETE Mr.weedle ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
See WP:NSONG. Song has not appeared on any charts, written and performed by musicians that are not notable. 162 etc. ( talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
“You can feel GMA’s sincerity in reaching out to the needy. It is not only for publicity or ratings, they truly wanted to make a difference. And their artists reflect the values they hold dearly. Kapuso forever!”
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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Sources found on Google News are either press releases, unreliable, insignificant coverage, etc. Sungodtemple ( talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete. It's not notable, nor RS are there. There are some news in Google search however they are not sufficient. -- Assirian cat ( talk) 10:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is delete by strength of argument. The only source presented is not reliable, and whether it is of any use for the current topic is shaky. If this is truly an actual settlement verifiable by reliable sources, an article of equal length could be built with little additional volunteer effort. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:HOAX. The already dubious references cited in the article do not mention the supposed village at all, nor am I able to find a single source/RS which even mentions it. The statement "It is unknown if Uskut is now under Pakistani administration. The Delhi based SIA conducted raids on Uskut and Uri because both of the villages were under militant control." is also a blatant hoax by the creator of this article, who has already created hoax articles on other wikis (e.g. simplewiki). Gotitbro ( talk) 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tarand (animal). Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears there was a previous discussion to merge this page with Tarand (animal). I am bringing this back to the attention of other editors, as both seem to be variations on the same creature (mythical or otherwise). It may be necessary to delete this page and merge any notable material to the Tarand page, maintaining a redirect if necessary (likely). Thoughts? TNstingray ( talk) 12:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Merman#Folklore elsewhere. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete entirely TNstingray ( talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Grizzly bear. If an entity is considered by science to be a cryptid, we need sources discussing it as a cryptid; otherwise we risk spreading pseudoscience. As such I'm inclined to give very early sources much less weight, and consensus is against a standalone article even otherwise. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Most of this page is entirely unsourced, with the only source being a general study into the variations of North American bears, and this is not explicitly connected to the subject matter of MacFarlane's bear. Delete entirely, though a redirect could be maintained to List of individual bears if necessary. TNstingray ( talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Merriam, Clinton H. 1918. Review of the grizzly and big brown bears of North America (genus Ursus). North American Fauna 41: 1-136). This happens all the time, and if we dignified each instance with an article then we would have 86 articles for the brown bear alone. For that species, the post-genetics winnowing down to the current state is succinctly stated in one paragraph at Grizzly_bear#Ursus_arctos. That's all the coverage it should merit. If people think that "Monster Quest" (by golly) and this demand extra mention, then by all means add one sentence there. But definitely no separate article required. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🏳🌈 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This page does not currently justify its own existence, with the only sources being the book itself and another primary source that might not actually support the claim, but instead be just another example of myths presented in a natural history fashion. This page needs to be deleted, though I can also understand an argument for blanking and redirecting to the original author. Thoughts? TNstingray ( talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is a single sentence for the lead ("A Cello Christmas is the fifth studio album by Tina Guo") and a track listing. Not shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM at this point in time. Hey man im josh ( talk) 11:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Uses largely promotional sources. This book review [11] in a click bait site and this brief discussion [12] are all the coverage she has. GNG and AUTHOR not met. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources to demonstrate how these meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:45, 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!
08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Policy-based opinions are uniformly in favor of deletion. A list needs a consistent definition for inclusion, and such has not been supplied. The concerns about original research have not been resolved. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no definition of a 'non-sovereign country'. Therefore such a list cannot exist, it is WP:OR. If there is a source that 'non-sovereign country' means dependent territory then I could redirect there. Privybst ( talk) 07:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
recognised as countries by their respective sovereign statesand
non-sovereign "nations" that are recognised as such either by their respective sovereign state or internationallyare essentially meaningless. There is no "country" or "nation" status that exists in any sense that can meaningfully be applied internationally, except that of a sovereign state. The statuses of the entities in the list are not at all the same, while entities that do have the same status are not treated as parallel. It's a bit like making a list of Indians that includes both Mahatma Gandhi and Pocahontas, but excludes both Sacagawea and Srinivasa Ramanujan as insufficiently "Indian".
Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point.
Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus, and is therefore not an SPA.
Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration.
A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose."
Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.. In particular this list relies upon WP:SYNTH because it relies on disparate definitions of what constitutes a country. Although some commentators above seem to understand a country to be co-extensive with a state, English usage has other definitions, and it is clear that there are countries that are not states, but incorporated in states, or in the purview of states. Nevertheless the definition of country varies and is often disputed. Sources in this article demonstrate the grey areas but do not prove these are countries. UK home nations are countries by one definition, and the source shows they have ISO country codes (which is not quite saying that the ISO recognises them as countries, despite what the page says). But different inclusion criteria are used for different entries and others (such as Texas per Peter Kingiron) are excluded arbitrarily simply because no one (much) calls them a country. Inclusion based on equivocal definitions of countries is WP:SYNTH and an attempt to limit the definition to one single definition would be WP:OR so I think this list is doomed to failure, and sadly must be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
same locationyou are talking about a country of seven million people and different telcos most of which having their registered addresses in just a few neighbourhoods of the country; and for
substantive edit historyyou are talking about non-static IP addresses assigned by these telcos. 220.246.37.189 ( talk) 09:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
the same city" in question here is actually a territory which contains some other towns and villages with a total number of several million inhabitants. 1.36.63.143 ( talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It looks quite a bit WP:TOOSOON, at best, for academic notability for this 2016 PhD. He has one authored book, but I'm not finding reviews in reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. No other sign of notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 06:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was draftify. If it is cleaned up in short order, it can be restored to mainspace in short order.
BD2412
T
05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Apparently machine translated article from Arabic. Significant details are being lost in the translation. For instance, Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun becomes "Boovers" in this translation. Parts of the article are completely not understandable because sentences run on forever with no punctuation. Better to nuke it and start again. Schierbecker ( talk) 05:59, 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!
06:05, 19 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! 06:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails to establish notability (all database sources). Only source found was a database book mention. DareshMohan ( talk) 06:01, 19 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! 06:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The film released in 2010 and surprisingly has no reviews or no sourcing to establish its notability. Found one book source and nothing else. DareshMohan ( talk) 05:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
A list with only two elements, both of which are ‘unusual’ (the Antiquities Museum may screen films but isn’t a commercial cinema, the Shchors cinema is no longer a cinema ). Wikipedia isn’t a directory, but in any case neither of the listed entities are actually cinemas. Mccapra ( talk) 03:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Thor (band)#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM, is solely reliant on a single reliable source. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Thor (band)#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM, is solely reliant on a single source. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Dictionary definition, see WP:NOTDICT. I do not think a redirect is appropriate, as the concept of a spin-off is not general to TV, and there is at least one TV series called The Parent Show it could be confused with. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 03:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Currently sourced by primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:57, 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!
02:41, 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!
02:43, 19 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. North America 1000 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Article also lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:51, 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!
02:41, 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!
02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing enough in the way of credits and notice to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)