The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Another endless "list" article and is duplicative of Category:Murder in California. AldezD ( talk) 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Cbl62: There's a section titled "Polices shootouts and ambushes". This is not main-space ready. AldezD ( talk) 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has received 200+ edits since it was nominated. Please evaluate recent changes to the article when offering your opinion on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Not clear why this person is notable, range of sources neither appear reliable nor offer significant coverage, the "football career". JAYFAX ( talk) 16:33, 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!
20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep ( non-admin closure). 4meter4 ( talk) 01:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Very little coverage on Robert herself before her unfortunate death. More than a few passive mentions in articles covering her son's highly publicized sexual assault in Dubai, but that doesn't help much when it comes to her notability as a journalist. Mooonswimmer 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 00:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted earlier this year after an AfD that attracted no participation. Then restored without improvement. The articles in other languages wikis aren’t much help in determining notability or providing sources. I’ve looked in English and Bengali and don’t see anything that looks like in depth coverage in RIS. There may of course be sources in Bengali I’ve missed, but if so it would be good for someone to add them. Mccapra ( talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this would be right on the border of "no consensus", the BLP1E concerns here put this here, at least for now. This is a case where things certainly might be reconsidered after some time has passed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Not even a full professor. Google Scholar index of 7. There are multiple non-notable professors in third world countries, such as Nigeria that have higher numbers, but are not notable. Fails WP:NPROF. Most of the sources are centered around her sensationalist comment about Queen Elizabeth 2. I don't think Wikipedia was created for such. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
"Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?described in the NPROF General notes. I was hoping to find book reviews for the book she co-edited to help show support for WP:AUTHOR notability, and I would be open to changing my !vote if stronger sourcing can be found to support her notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
She wrote an academic book that won an award.Come on...that's obviously not sufficient for NPROF #2. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area- and CNN describes her as a Twitter user, not an academic. As to the three reviews that have been found, I appreciate the analysis by Russ Woodroofe above, and if there is an article for her reviewed book, would favor a redirect to that article. Beccaynr ( talk) 12:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2, so I attempted to compare the type of award and did not ever suggest that only Nobels or Pulitzers qualify. To clarify my previous comment, this award does not appear to be similar to awards described in NPROF#2, and I could not otherwise find support for its notability, and therefore the award does not appear sufficient to support an article at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:15, 26 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
significant or well-known. The reviews help support WP:NBOOK notability, but more is needed to support notability for the author. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be WP:OR for a neologism, connected to the human overpopulation challenges we have had over the last few years: of a very narrow set of concepts being pushed to argue for a particular political position. If we keep the concept, should be redirected to Sustainable population. Sadads ( talk) 13:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lake Ikeda. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete. TNstingray ( talk) 12:53, 19 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nigeria Amateur League Division Two. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable football club in Nigeria playing lowest division of amateur league. Poorly sourced and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jamiebuba ( talk) 09:54, 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!
08:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:59, 19 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!
23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Nigeria Amateur League Division Two as possible search term per GiantSnowman. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
So, I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with Nigerian media, but these sources don't seem to be reliable at all. BellaNaija is already flagged as unreliable by this script. One website is literally "ghgossip.com". Some look like they are a cheap copy of Wikipedia. Nothing from these strike up to me as reliable. Fails the GNG. ~Styyx Talk? 21:21, 26 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! 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
As this is a for-profit, the sources need to meet the strict criteria of
WP:NCORP to contribute to notability. Several sources begin with "Al Mashhad.. a platform that extends all boundaries bla bla bla", those are promotional announcements failing
WP:ORGIND (requiring the content of the sources to independent i. e. "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
"), often copied from each other.
This is a single sentence announcement without SIGCOV. All other sources are about the creation of the company, which, again, fail
WP:ORGIND.
~Styyx
Talk?
21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary amount of detail for a relatively routine action that would be better covered (and is already mostly covered) at the article Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also potentially WP:SUSTAINED issues but foreign-language sources might exist. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 21:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Some off-point accusations aside, the Keep comments brought forward evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which most of the Delete comments did not engage. The one Delete commenter who did engage with the source discussion ended by withdrawing their position. RL0919 ( talk) 04:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable crypto expert. Sources from reliable publications are just name drops without any significant coverage. Fails the GNG. ~Styyx Talk? 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*Delete more crypto fluff. Is there anyone connected with crypto that isn't an expert? Agree with the name drops, sourcing is no where near GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk)
22:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this article or subject in its current from meets the GNG. It mostly uses primary sources, only has 10,000 results on Google. The only notable person here could easily have their entries merged into their respective articles, and press coverage is limited to only around 200 results, with an even lower 21 results on Google Scholar. InvadingInvader ( talk) 21:05, 26 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! 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Needs to meet WP:NONPROFIT, however, it lacks significant coverage. Sources are either from the organization itself or just passing mentions. Isn't notable. ~Styyx Talk? 20:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Unicorn#Similar animals in religion and myth. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete entirely, or if necessary, blank and redirect to a section in Unicorn. TNstingray ( talk) 12:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
20:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
A term for an anti-porn chaperone, particularly among some American Christians, apparently. This is clearly a thing that exists, but it's not clear that it is a notable thing (
WP:GNG), and there's not much more here than a
WP:DICDEF. The sources cited are weak and mostly unreliable. A search found several mentions of the concept, particularly in connection to
accountability software, but nothing substantial enough for an article. A redirect to
accountability software would probably not help because the term seems also to be in use for things unrelated to porn avoidance, such as fitness training.
Sandstein
17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If expansion were possible, it would have been done.is an untrue statement. I wish it were true, but unfortunately Wikipedia is full of work that needs to have been done for years to decades now. Jclemens ( talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article has been improved; nominator has withdrawn his nomination. More work can be done to improve the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of a community here; this is simply a rail junction and former railroad work camp. Coverage of the current quarry/industrial operations is not significant. The historic bridge is covered at
National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona. –
dlthewave
☎
16:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Enter the name of the city or town where the property is located. For properties outside the boundaries of a city or town, follow the instructions for Vicinity. / VICINITY / For a property located outside the boundaries of a city or town (or where the address is restricted), mark "x" in the box, and enter the name of the nearest city or town found on the USGS map in the blank for "city or town."
the Arizona Bridge Inventory, conducted by Fraserdesign in 1986-87. Undertaken for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) with the cooperation of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (ASHPO) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), this comprehensive study presents a historical inventory and evaluation of pre-1945 vehicular bridges currently in use on the state, county and city road systems of Arizona.(Fraser, in the MPS)
Cedar Glade Cemetery, also known as Drake Cemetery, is located on the grounds of the Drake Cement Company sandstone processing plant near Hell Canyon. Visitors must stop at the security gate for permission to enter the facility. The company is dedicated to preserving the graves and has fenced off this historic pioneer cemetery.
I expect searching on Cedar Glade will yield more sources. Also a ADMMR mining collection file: Cedar Glade Quarries is about quarries there. Wikipedia does not have an article on the larger town of Puntenney, Arizona; offhand I wouldn't mind if the two towns were covered in one article because their histories are linked. this about Puntenney as a ghosttown has some info about Cedar Glade, and that the bridge between is blocked by the cement plant. But the result of AFD should be "Keep", either way. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Clear WP:SPORTCRIT fail as per WP:BEFORE source check." - my PROD rationale stands. But since certain users seem intent on continuing to disrupt the sports stub BLP cleanup effort whenever they can, we must go through this ritual. Sorry for the waste of time, but then again, I'm not the one who should apologize. Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2021 Nor.Ca. Women's Handball Championship. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Most names on the article (only one name is notable) are not notable. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
User:Malo95, please do not merge unless the closure of this discussion indicates a merger. You can improve the article but please do not move or merge it. Doing this prevents other participants from evaluating the article and offering their opinions and also can complicate the discussion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD contested without any showing of potential SIGCOV. All of the online English and Spanish language coverage available is routine and/or trivial. Jogurney ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. And redirect from "merge" as a reasonable search term. User:Donaldd23 merged content to Grey's Anatomy#DVD releases. List of Grey's Anatomy episodes is sufficient for retaining attribution. Closing early per WP:CSD#G7 as I'm the only author. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Prod removed because there are other similar lists, which doesn't address the actual issue of course (but may indicate that some of these other lists need looking at as well). Sourced to commercial DVD seller sites, and looking for something better for at random season 13 gives nothing useful. Fram ( talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of KonoSuba characters#Megumin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Reception is WP:REFBOMB but has nothing particularly about the character Megumin as compared to just trivial mentions in other material about the series itself, or fan votes ( WP:USERG). The article in general fails WP:GNG and has nothing that could not simply be contained within the character list for the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Found more articles centered around her and added around her. I don't know if I can't add more content though. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Found more sources about gng and the spinoff where is the protagonist. Not sure if it's better now.
The result was delete. Not really a "speedy" deletion as this is being closed after a week long AFD, but WP:CSD#G5 does apply here, and that also precludes sending this to draft space. The article was previously a redirect to the Winter Olympics, but that article doesn't mention the 2034 games. In any case, an article is expected here in due course as the event draws closer, but consensus is that it is too soon for an article for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently not fit for mainspace through WP:CRYSTAL as none of the locations (only 2) have been announced as official candidates. A previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics) established notability, which is why this AfD is being used to draftify the article. A previous user attempted to draftify without discussion, which was reverted by another user. Originally, this article was a redirect, which was removed and changed into this speculation article by a now blocked WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip ( talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sponge (band)#Studio albums. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Has been repeatedly redirected to Sponge (band)#Studio albums, and repeatedly restored by the article creator, so bringing this to AfD to establish a consensus. The band were briefly famous in the mid-1990s, but to be honest, all of their albums in the 21st century are of dubious notability and could be redirected or merged, and this one even more so – no reviews in reliable sources anywhere as far as I can tell, and no charting anywhere in the world. Current sources are one sentence from the band's AllMusic biography that says "the album was released"; a Spanish collective music blog which says nothing about the credentials of the contributors, but the writer of this particular article is a secondary school teacher; and the personal blog of a writer. The only source which could remotely be considered worthwhile is the Icon vs. Icon source, which hasn't been established to be an RS, and is not a review of the album, but more an advertisement for its forthcoming release, complete with link to the video of the lead single. There are no RSes to determine that this album is notable beyond being released. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There was no significant coverage of this project. It fails basic notability guidelines. While having a noble goal, the project fizzled. There are no significant Wikipedia links to the article, most links are from aggregation templates such as {{ AMD}}. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Towards the end of his footballing career, Ortiz was the subject of an article covering his hairdressing business ( [31]). This single article isn't enough to satisfy the GNG, and the only other online English and Spanish-language coverage is routine/trivial. Jogurney ( talk) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:06, 30 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 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.
PROD removed with "rev prod" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Normally our "timelines" work as a chronological link to articles dealing with the subjects of the timeline. This though is a list of primary sources, a rather specialized bibliography, and isn't a notable subject on its own nor a navigational tool to articles about the individual entries. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Fram ( talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
fails to indicate how 'significant events' are definedThis is false. That's currently on the talk page and will get moved in a shorter form to the lead. It's not an amorphous topic and a topic more significant than e.g. paleontology. It's not an "arbitrary personal collection" either. Like the many other timelines like it, it perfectly meets WP:NOTWEBHOST. Prototyperspective ( talk) 13:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
fails to indicate how 'significant events' are defined.
making the same argument over and overand
Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed.(it is needed due to misconceptions).
even only including those that received mainstream media coverage this list would balloon into something entirely unmanageable and useless for how broad it is or can beis false for two reasons:
informed byare not included, only studies within those fields about policies.
there's no reason I could not populate this with literally hundreds of itemsis false for the two reasons of #3 above.
the same comment multiple timesand tried to make my
case clearly and let other users decide for themselveswhich can sometimes require addressing specific points, especially if they are in my view misconceptions that need clarifications. Prototyperspective ( talk) 10:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA, being a false internet rumour/viral phenomena. Received a couple of mentions in news sources but nothing concrete other than characterisation as a false rumour. JackWilfred ( talk) 13:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mob Rules (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This song is far less notable than the album. It should redirect to Mob Rules (album). Most of the sources mentioning this song do so in the context of the album, for instance Rolling Stone magazine talking about the 2021 album re-issues which include some previously unpublished live versions of the song. Same with Under the Radar magazine and Loudwire talking about the 2021 re-issues. Yes, the single charted in the UK at number 46, but I don't see significant discussion of the song in published sources. Binksternet ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Welp how do I make it notable? ytzesza ( talk) 06:13 October 3, 2022 (CST)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Do not satisfy WP:NBAND and an online search provided no WP:SIGCOV of their career or music. – Meena • 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing for the article about this genealogist and novelist is poor, and WP:BEFORE did not find me anything to add. References are mostly primary sources, apart from a deadlink to an article in the Herald, and article has been tagged as relying too much on primary sources since 2018. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Little to no coverage from reliable sources found. There are only blogs entries, and the award seems to be discontinued. 0x Deadbeef 09:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article does not satisfy WP:GNG. The notion of people with aristocratic titles being automatically notable is aired at other deletion discussions on the same subject which have resulted in deletion. In previous discussions, it has been noted that inclusion in a Who's Who type publication is relevant but not sufficient to satisfy the WP:Notability criteria. Some aristrocrats are notable for reasons related to their aristocratic status (e.g King Charles 3 of England) but the overwhelming majority are not. Others are notable for reasons unrelated to their nobility (e.g. The First Duke of Wellington). The subject of this article does not satisfy the notability criteria either way. In the first instance because the distance from the English (and other countries') throne is very great (and getting greater); the second instance seems self-evident. Emmentalist ( talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV ( there is an interview and another one, both look like weak WP:INTERVIEWs), she published a few books but neither she nor the books have attracted much coverage, so she fails WP:NAUTHOR. And the fact the creator of this has been banned as a sock of an account with some BLP issues doesn't help. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Joan Francés Blanc. I'm closing this as a redirect to the author even thought that article is also the subject of an AFD. It still seems like the best solution here and ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable and fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Current refs are obviously inadequate, ref 1 is a WordPress blog (non-reliable), whereas refs 2, 3, and 4 are all different versions of this book (non-independent). The original version translated is no better, WP:BEFORE search finds no refs that could be RS and SIGCOV; I will note there are lots of books of similar names but by different authors; see 1, 2, 3, but they obviously aren't the same with this book, which seems to be non-notable. Though, it's mentioned in Joan Francés Blanc, though these refs are books that seem to trivially list this book on one page, so IMHO, a redirect there would be the best idea. Update: IMHO redirecting/merging would be a great option still. I'm assuming that the Le Setmana ref is this, which might be reliable (ref 2), though I'm unsure. But, the author also wrote this very positive piece. The ref from Avui seems to be definitely RS that is SIGCOV, but the notability is still iffy. VickKiang 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable personality, writing editorials is not the same as being notable for GNG purposes, can't find any articles discussion the person themselves as an individual. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 07:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
this article is a mess of a dictionary definition and a science journal summary. should be blown up. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 06:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This article has been removed from all other wikis. It is interesting how such a non-encyclopedic organization can remain in the English Wikipedia. Atakhanli ( talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see some participation by editors who frequent AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:31, 26 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! 06:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG. Directed only one film so far, which is non-notable due to lack of reliable reviews in addition to an unreleased film. Other crew roles are insignificant. -- Ab207 ( talk) 06:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete: As the article doesn't have independent reliable sources, it's better to delete.... Jayanthkumar123 ( talk) 08:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Adani Group#Philanthropy. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an article for promotional purposes and doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. RPSkokie ( talk) 04:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Supernatural. Reading over all of the comments, this is an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not a proper disambiguation page, having zero matching titles, and zero topics that would pass the "also known as" test. This is merely a partial list of things that would be described as types of something. Delete and redirect the title to Supernatural. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Thus this should be deleted without any redirect. The argument that this could be a possible article, while not totally implausible, is not a reason to keep this article. This article is a poor starting point for any such article and WP:TNT would apply. If there is an encyclopaedic topic on this subject (and I see no evidence this is the case, but it is possible), an editor could just as easily create the page from scratch, and create a properly sourced and researched article, as to rework this one. Indeed, I would suggest they are more likely to do so if this hot mess is gone. Because the new article would, presumably, be sourced and completely different to this one, this AfD would not preclude them making such an article (assuming any such article is itself notable). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:36, 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!
04:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. No consensus, opinions are divided between Delete, Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of him (rather than work by him) on a search. Hits appear limited to trivial mentions in discussions of other things. A post about his podcast on some guy's blog is not reliable (nor is it sigcov of him). A mention of his podcast in a listicle is also not sigcov of him. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 04:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Shrine of a Sufi saint. Sources in the article don’t demonstrate notability. I’ve searched in English and Urdu and can’t find anything else to support notability either. Mccapra ( talk) 03:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 04:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Struggling to find sources that discuss the concept of survivor registries as a group, which would indicate notability of the broader category. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lotte Chilsung. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A promotional article that does not have any sources that meet NCORP. –– FormalDude (talk) 00:07, 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!
01:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The fate of this article is somewhat dependent on the resolution of the AFD about
Lotte Chilsung.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator in face of the sources provided. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 12:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
A
WP:BEFORE does not turn up any sources that appear to pass
NCORP. ––
FormalDude
(talk)
00:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Edit: Nomination withdrawn in light of sources provided by Mikeblas below. ––
FormalDude
(talk)
03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist as I see no consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Discworld characters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable book character (or feature, I guess.) This computer appeared in the Discworld series. All of the article is in-universe coverage, except for the "Real world connections" section. References include an Imugr post and a blog post. Others are obliquely related at best. There's little critical analysis, and adequate independent notability is not supported by available references. Mikeblas ( talk) 00:05, 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!
01:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because participants here are sharply divided between strong Delete and Keep. Is a Merge a possible third option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:GNG not met. First source is statistical coverage only, second source is not independent as it's from the team. On a search, only found this scant source, which at about 50 words long is hardly WP:SIGCOV. Nothing further located. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. After withdrawal of nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see the difference between this one and Falconry.
And the tone of its lead is not good. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 02:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Another endless "list" article and is duplicative of Category:Murder in California. AldezD ( talk) 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Cbl62: There's a section titled "Polices shootouts and ambushes". This is not main-space ready. AldezD ( talk) 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has received 200+ edits since it was nominated. Please evaluate recent changes to the article when offering your opinion on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Not clear why this person is notable, range of sources neither appear reliable nor offer significant coverage, the "football career". JAYFAX ( talk) 16:33, 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!
20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep ( non-admin closure). 4meter4 ( talk) 01:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Very little coverage on Robert herself before her unfortunate death. More than a few passive mentions in articles covering her son's highly publicized sexual assault in Dubai, but that doesn't help much when it comes to her notability as a journalist. Mooonswimmer 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 00:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted earlier this year after an AfD that attracted no participation. Then restored without improvement. The articles in other languages wikis aren’t much help in determining notability or providing sources. I’ve looked in English and Bengali and don’t see anything that looks like in depth coverage in RIS. There may of course be sources in Bengali I’ve missed, but if so it would be good for someone to add them. Mccapra ( talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this would be right on the border of "no consensus", the BLP1E concerns here put this here, at least for now. This is a case where things certainly might be reconsidered after some time has passed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Not even a full professor. Google Scholar index of 7. There are multiple non-notable professors in third world countries, such as Nigeria that have higher numbers, but are not notable. Fails WP:NPROF. Most of the sources are centered around her sensationalist comment about Queen Elizabeth 2. I don't think Wikipedia was created for such. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
"Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?described in the NPROF General notes. I was hoping to find book reviews for the book she co-edited to help show support for WP:AUTHOR notability, and I would be open to changing my !vote if stronger sourcing can be found to support her notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
She wrote an academic book that won an award.Come on...that's obviously not sufficient for NPROF #2. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area- and CNN describes her as a Twitter user, not an academic. As to the three reviews that have been found, I appreciate the analysis by Russ Woodroofe above, and if there is an article for her reviewed book, would favor a redirect to that article. Beccaynr ( talk) 12:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2, so I attempted to compare the type of award and did not ever suggest that only Nobels or Pulitzers qualify. To clarify my previous comment, this award does not appear to be similar to awards described in NPROF#2, and I could not otherwise find support for its notability, and therefore the award does not appear sufficient to support an article at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:15, 26 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
significant or well-known. The reviews help support WP:NBOOK notability, but more is needed to support notability for the author. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be WP:OR for a neologism, connected to the human overpopulation challenges we have had over the last few years: of a very narrow set of concepts being pushed to argue for a particular political position. If we keep the concept, should be redirected to Sustainable population. Sadads ( talk) 13:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lake Ikeda. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete. TNstingray ( talk) 12:53, 19 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, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nigeria Amateur League Division Two. Modussiccandi ( talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable football club in Nigeria playing lowest division of amateur league. Poorly sourced and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jamiebuba ( talk) 09:54, 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!
08:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:59, 19 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!
23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Nigeria Amateur League Division Two as possible search term per GiantSnowman. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
So, I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with Nigerian media, but these sources don't seem to be reliable at all. BellaNaija is already flagged as unreliable by this script. One website is literally "ghgossip.com". Some look like they are a cheap copy of Wikipedia. Nothing from these strike up to me as reliable. Fails the GNG. ~Styyx Talk? 21:21, 26 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! 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
As this is a for-profit, the sources need to meet the strict criteria of
WP:NCORP to contribute to notability. Several sources begin with "Al Mashhad.. a platform that extends all boundaries bla bla bla", those are promotional announcements failing
WP:ORGIND (requiring the content of the sources to independent i. e. "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
"), often copied from each other.
This is a single sentence announcement without SIGCOV. All other sources are about the creation of the company, which, again, fail
WP:ORGIND.
~Styyx
Talk?
21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary amount of detail for a relatively routine action that would be better covered (and is already mostly covered) at the article Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also potentially WP:SUSTAINED issues but foreign-language sources might exist. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they) Talk to Me! 21:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Some off-point accusations aside, the Keep comments brought forward evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which most of the Delete comments did not engage. The one Delete commenter who did engage with the source discussion ended by withdrawing their position. RL0919 ( talk) 04:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable crypto expert. Sources from reliable publications are just name drops without any significant coverage. Fails the GNG. ~Styyx Talk? 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*Delete more crypto fluff. Is there anyone connected with crypto that isn't an expert? Agree with the name drops, sourcing is no where near GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk)
22:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this article or subject in its current from meets the GNG. It mostly uses primary sources, only has 10,000 results on Google. The only notable person here could easily have their entries merged into their respective articles, and press coverage is limited to only around 200 results, with an even lower 21 results on Google Scholar. InvadingInvader ( talk) 21:05, 26 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! 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Needs to meet WP:NONPROFIT, however, it lacks significant coverage. Sources are either from the organization itself or just passing mentions. Isn't notable. ~Styyx Talk? 20:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Unicorn#Similar animals in religion and myth. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Delete entirely, or if necessary, blank and redirect to a section in Unicorn. TNstingray ( talk) 12:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
20:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
A term for an anti-porn chaperone, particularly among some American Christians, apparently. This is clearly a thing that exists, but it's not clear that it is a notable thing (
WP:GNG), and there's not much more here than a
WP:DICDEF. The sources cited are weak and mostly unreliable. A search found several mentions of the concept, particularly in connection to
accountability software, but nothing substantial enough for an article. A redirect to
accountability software would probably not help because the term seems also to be in use for things unrelated to porn avoidance, such as fitness training.
Sandstein
17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If expansion were possible, it would have been done.is an untrue statement. I wish it were true, but unfortunately Wikipedia is full of work that needs to have been done for years to decades now. Jclemens ( talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article has been improved; nominator has withdrawn his nomination. More work can be done to improve the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of a community here; this is simply a rail junction and former railroad work camp. Coverage of the current quarry/industrial operations is not significant. The historic bridge is covered at
National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona. –
dlthewave
☎
16:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Enter the name of the city or town where the property is located. For properties outside the boundaries of a city or town, follow the instructions for Vicinity. / VICINITY / For a property located outside the boundaries of a city or town (or where the address is restricted), mark "x" in the box, and enter the name of the nearest city or town found on the USGS map in the blank for "city or town."
the Arizona Bridge Inventory, conducted by Fraserdesign in 1986-87. Undertaken for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) with the cooperation of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (ASHPO) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), this comprehensive study presents a historical inventory and evaluation of pre-1945 vehicular bridges currently in use on the state, county and city road systems of Arizona.(Fraser, in the MPS)
Cedar Glade Cemetery, also known as Drake Cemetery, is located on the grounds of the Drake Cement Company sandstone processing plant near Hell Canyon. Visitors must stop at the security gate for permission to enter the facility. The company is dedicated to preserving the graves and has fenced off this historic pioneer cemetery.
I expect searching on Cedar Glade will yield more sources. Also a ADMMR mining collection file: Cedar Glade Quarries is about quarries there. Wikipedia does not have an article on the larger town of Puntenney, Arizona; offhand I wouldn't mind if the two towns were covered in one article because their histories are linked. this about Puntenney as a ghosttown has some info about Cedar Glade, and that the bridge between is blocked by the cement plant. But the result of AFD should be "Keep", either way. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Clear WP:SPORTCRIT fail as per WP:BEFORE source check." - my PROD rationale stands. But since certain users seem intent on continuing to disrupt the sports stub BLP cleanup effort whenever they can, we must go through this ritual. Sorry for the waste of time, but then again, I'm not the one who should apologize. Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2021 Nor.Ca. Women's Handball Championship. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Most names on the article (only one name is notable) are not notable. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
User:Malo95, please do not merge unless the closure of this discussion indicates a merger. You can improve the article but please do not move or merge it. Doing this prevents other participants from evaluating the article and offering their opinions and also can complicate the discussion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
—ScottyWong—
16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD contested without any showing of potential SIGCOV. All of the online English and Spanish language coverage available is routine and/or trivial. Jogurney ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. And redirect from "merge" as a reasonable search term. User:Donaldd23 merged content to Grey's Anatomy#DVD releases. List of Grey's Anatomy episodes is sufficient for retaining attribution. Closing early per WP:CSD#G7 as I'm the only author. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Prod removed because there are other similar lists, which doesn't address the actual issue of course (but may indicate that some of these other lists need looking at as well). Sourced to commercial DVD seller sites, and looking for something better for at random season 13 gives nothing useful. Fram ( talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of KonoSuba characters#Megumin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Reception is WP:REFBOMB but has nothing particularly about the character Megumin as compared to just trivial mentions in other material about the series itself, or fan votes ( WP:USERG). The article in general fails WP:GNG and has nothing that could not simply be contained within the character list for the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Found more articles centered around her and added around her. I don't know if I can't add more content though. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Found more sources about gng and the spinoff where is the protagonist. Not sure if it's better now.
The result was delete. Not really a "speedy" deletion as this is being closed after a week long AFD, but WP:CSD#G5 does apply here, and that also precludes sending this to draft space. The article was previously a redirect to the Winter Olympics, but that article doesn't mention the 2034 games. In any case, an article is expected here in due course as the event draws closer, but consensus is that it is too soon for an article for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently not fit for mainspace through WP:CRYSTAL as none of the locations (only 2) have been announced as official candidates. A previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics) established notability, which is why this AfD is being used to draftify the article. A previous user attempted to draftify without discussion, which was reverted by another user. Originally, this article was a redirect, which was removed and changed into this speculation article by a now blocked WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip ( talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sponge (band)#Studio albums. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Has been repeatedly redirected to Sponge (band)#Studio albums, and repeatedly restored by the article creator, so bringing this to AfD to establish a consensus. The band were briefly famous in the mid-1990s, but to be honest, all of their albums in the 21st century are of dubious notability and could be redirected or merged, and this one even more so – no reviews in reliable sources anywhere as far as I can tell, and no charting anywhere in the world. Current sources are one sentence from the band's AllMusic biography that says "the album was released"; a Spanish collective music blog which says nothing about the credentials of the contributors, but the writer of this particular article is a secondary school teacher; and the personal blog of a writer. The only source which could remotely be considered worthwhile is the Icon vs. Icon source, which hasn't been established to be an RS, and is not a review of the album, but more an advertisement for its forthcoming release, complete with link to the video of the lead single. There are no RSes to determine that this album is notable beyond being released. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There was no significant coverage of this project. It fails basic notability guidelines. While having a noble goal, the project fizzled. There are no significant Wikipedia links to the article, most links are from aggregation templates such as {{ AMD}}. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Towards the end of his footballing career, Ortiz was the subject of an article covering his hairdressing business ( [31]). This single article isn't enough to satisfy the GNG, and the only other online English and Spanish-language coverage is routine/trivial. Jogurney ( talk) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:06, 30 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 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.
PROD removed with "rev prod" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Normally our "timelines" work as a chronological link to articles dealing with the subjects of the timeline. This though is a list of primary sources, a rather specialized bibliography, and isn't a notable subject on its own nor a navigational tool to articles about the individual entries. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Fram ( talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
fails to indicate how 'significant events' are definedThis is false. That's currently on the talk page and will get moved in a shorter form to the lead. It's not an amorphous topic and a topic more significant than e.g. paleontology. It's not an "arbitrary personal collection" either. Like the many other timelines like it, it perfectly meets WP:NOTWEBHOST. Prototyperspective ( talk) 13:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
fails to indicate how 'significant events' are defined.
making the same argument over and overand
Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed.(it is needed due to misconceptions).
even only including those that received mainstream media coverage this list would balloon into something entirely unmanageable and useless for how broad it is or can beis false for two reasons:
informed byare not included, only studies within those fields about policies.
there's no reason I could not populate this with literally hundreds of itemsis false for the two reasons of #3 above.
the same comment multiple timesand tried to make my
case clearly and let other users decide for themselveswhich can sometimes require addressing specific points, especially if they are in my view misconceptions that need clarifications. Prototyperspective ( talk) 10:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Article does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA, being a false internet rumour/viral phenomena. Received a couple of mentions in news sources but nothing concrete other than characterisation as a false rumour. JackWilfred ( talk) 13:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mob Rules (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This song is far less notable than the album. It should redirect to Mob Rules (album). Most of the sources mentioning this song do so in the context of the album, for instance Rolling Stone magazine talking about the 2021 album re-issues which include some previously unpublished live versions of the song. Same with Under the Radar magazine and Loudwire talking about the 2021 re-issues. Yes, the single charted in the UK at number 46, but I don't see significant discussion of the song in published sources. Binksternet ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Welp how do I make it notable? ytzesza ( talk) 06:13 October 3, 2022 (CST)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Do not satisfy WP:NBAND and an online search provided no WP:SIGCOV of their career or music. – Meena • 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing for the article about this genealogist and novelist is poor, and WP:BEFORE did not find me anything to add. References are mostly primary sources, apart from a deadlink to an article in the Herald, and article has been tagged as relying too much on primary sources since 2018. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
11:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Little to no coverage from reliable sources found. There are only blogs entries, and the award seems to be discontinued. 0x Deadbeef 09:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article does not satisfy WP:GNG. The notion of people with aristocratic titles being automatically notable is aired at other deletion discussions on the same subject which have resulted in deletion. In previous discussions, it has been noted that inclusion in a Who's Who type publication is relevant but not sufficient to satisfy the WP:Notability criteria. Some aristrocrats are notable for reasons related to their aristocratic status (e.g King Charles 3 of England) but the overwhelming majority are not. Others are notable for reasons unrelated to their nobility (e.g. The First Duke of Wellington). The subject of this article does not satisfy the notability criteria either way. In the first instance because the distance from the English (and other countries') throne is very great (and getting greater); the second instance seems self-evident. Emmentalist ( talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV ( there is an interview and another one, both look like weak WP:INTERVIEWs), she published a few books but neither she nor the books have attracted much coverage, so she fails WP:NAUTHOR. And the fact the creator of this has been banned as a sock of an account with some BLP issues doesn't help. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Joan Francés Blanc. I'm closing this as a redirect to the author even thought that article is also the subject of an AFD. It still seems like the best solution here and ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable and fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Current refs are obviously inadequate, ref 1 is a WordPress blog (non-reliable), whereas refs 2, 3, and 4 are all different versions of this book (non-independent). The original version translated is no better, WP:BEFORE search finds no refs that could be RS and SIGCOV; I will note there are lots of books of similar names but by different authors; see 1, 2, 3, but they obviously aren't the same with this book, which seems to be non-notable. Though, it's mentioned in Joan Francés Blanc, though these refs are books that seem to trivially list this book on one page, so IMHO, a redirect there would be the best idea. Update: IMHO redirecting/merging would be a great option still. I'm assuming that the Le Setmana ref is this, which might be reliable (ref 2), though I'm unsure. But, the author also wrote this very positive piece. The ref from Avui seems to be definitely RS that is SIGCOV, but the notability is still iffy. VickKiang 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable personality, writing editorials is not the same as being notable for GNG purposes, can't find any articles discussion the person themselves as an individual. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 07:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
this article is a mess of a dictionary definition and a science journal summary. should be blown up. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 06:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This article has been removed from all other wikis. It is interesting how such a non-encyclopedic organization can remain in the English Wikipedia. Atakhanli ( talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see some participation by editors who frequent AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:31, 26 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! 06:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG. Directed only one film so far, which is non-notable due to lack of reliable reviews in addition to an unreleased film. Other crew roles are insignificant. -- Ab207 ( talk) 06:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete: As the article doesn't have independent reliable sources, it's better to delete.... Jayanthkumar123 ( talk) 08:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Adani Group#Philanthropy. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an article for promotional purposes and doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. RPSkokie ( talk) 04:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Supernatural. Reading over all of the comments, this is an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not a proper disambiguation page, having zero matching titles, and zero topics that would pass the "also known as" test. This is merely a partial list of things that would be described as types of something. Delete and redirect the title to Supernatural. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Thus this should be deleted without any redirect. The argument that this could be a possible article, while not totally implausible, is not a reason to keep this article. This article is a poor starting point for any such article and WP:TNT would apply. If there is an encyclopaedic topic on this subject (and I see no evidence this is the case, but it is possible), an editor could just as easily create the page from scratch, and create a properly sourced and researched article, as to rework this one. Indeed, I would suggest they are more likely to do so if this hot mess is gone. Because the new article would, presumably, be sourced and completely different to this one, this AfD would not preclude them making such an article (assuming any such article is itself notable). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:36, 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!
04:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. No consensus, opinions are divided between Delete, Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of him (rather than work by him) on a search. Hits appear limited to trivial mentions in discussions of other things. A post about his podcast on some guy's blog is not reliable (nor is it sigcov of him). A mention of his podcast in a listicle is also not sigcov of him. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 04:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Shrine of a Sufi saint. Sources in the article don’t demonstrate notability. I’ve searched in English and Urdu and can’t find anything else to support notability either. Mccapra ( talk) 03:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 04:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Struggling to find sources that discuss the concept of survivor registries as a group, which would indicate notability of the broader category. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to Lotte Chilsung. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A promotional article that does not have any sources that meet NCORP. –– FormalDude (talk) 00:07, 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!
01:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The fate of this article is somewhat dependent on the resolution of the AFD about
Lotte Chilsung.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator in face of the sources provided. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 12:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
A
WP:BEFORE does not turn up any sources that appear to pass
NCORP. ––
FormalDude
(talk)
00:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Edit: Nomination withdrawn in light of sources provided by Mikeblas below. ––
FormalDude
(talk)
03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist as I see no consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Discworld characters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable book character (or feature, I guess.) This computer appeared in the Discworld series. All of the article is in-universe coverage, except for the "Real world connections" section. References include an Imugr post and a blog post. Others are obliquely related at best. There's little critical analysis, and adequate independent notability is not supported by available references. Mikeblas ( talk) 00:05, 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!
01:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because participants here are sharply divided between strong Delete and Keep. Is a Merge a possible third option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:GNG not met. First source is statistical coverage only, second source is not independent as it's from the team. On a search, only found this scant source, which at about 50 words long is hardly WP:SIGCOV. Nothing further located. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. After withdrawal of nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see the difference between this one and Falconry.
And the tone of its lead is not good. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 02:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)