![]() |
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 00:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Outside of the Michigan Daily ( archive) and AllBusiness.com-hosted Billboard ( archive) articles, everything else on page and what I found through my search is only passing mentions. Article also has apparently severe CoI issues and would likely need an overhaul anyway. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
2007-07 ✗ CSD G11
The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn) . Closing early, all !votes are for keep and nominator agrees to withdraw. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 02:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from The Miami Herald (via Newspapers.com). It needs one more review to be eligible for article status. The fact that it is Tim Allen's debut film appearance does not make it notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator ( talk) 23:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The film review notes: "Tropical Snow is that bleakest of low-budget entities -- an exploitation B- movie with a social conscience. ... Once Tavo and Marina ally themselves with Oskar, the risks of the trade and their own stupidity quickly bring them to a bad end. Tropical Snow is directed and acted with the sort of solemn incompetence that only the truly untalented can achieve. Even the sex scenes, which are surprisingly explicit, have a sad, desperate quality. Apart from Carradine, the actors are as unconvincing as the film is boring."
The film review notes: " Tropical Snow tells the story of Tavo (Nick Corri) and Marina (Madeleine Stowe), two Colombians who flee poverty in Bogota for the promised land of New York City. The film manages to address anxieties facing illegal aliens, but it doesn't translate them into powerful drama until the last 40 minutes. ... Writer-director Ciro Duran uses pat story conventions early on, and even an offensive cliche -- while Tavo and Marina are strolling through Bogota, two Colombian women slug it out in the street, apparently because hot-blooded Latin spitfires are supposed to do this. ... Tropical Snow owes an obvious debt to El Norte, the 1983 drama about a brother and sister who flee Guatemala for Los Angeles. The new film fails to match its predecessor's poetic strength -- until the end. Though topical, Duran's film sometimes seems as simplistic as the metaphor in his title."
The film review notes: "Along with the movie's portrayal of hot-blooded Latinos-- every man seems to have only one thing on his mind-- there are other insensitive stereotypes. ... The three leads speak English (except for their peculiar habit of referring to New York as Nuevo York). Everyone else speaks Spanish-- just watch their lips-- that is overdubbed with English. The effect is disorienting. The best thing about Tropical Snow is that it's beautifully photographed. Eduardo Serra's cinematography gives everything, even the hillside shanty towns, a tarnished glow. This Bogota doesn't look like such a bad place, and that odd detail works at cross-purposes to the story."
The film review notes: "In view of Colombia's war on local druglords, tropical becomes topical in this sluggish "exposé" on cocaine smuggling, helmed by Colombian filmmaker Ciro Duran. ... Tech credits are okay with attention paid to sleazy barroom atmosphere and hazy Bogota streets. Acting is also all right. Abundant nudity may hinder tv sales, which seems like the most obvious market, especially with current media focus on Colombia's cocaine connection. -Lent."
The book notes: "Seen as a "topical" entry because the US and Colombia fought the cartels together, Cird Duran produced the saga of cocaine smuggling shot in Bogota. Noting that this was a fictitious story, it also claimed to be an everyday occurrence. Focused on two attractive youths who spend much screen time enjoying each other's bodies, they dream of going to the US to earn dollars for themselves and their families. Unable to obtain a tourist visa, a drug dealer promises them one if they will simply carry some cocaine to JFK airport for them. The scenes are graphic, boy and girl are made to swallow over a hundred units of the drug fitted into the cut finger of surgical rubber gloves. A gruesome process at best, they must pass the material within twenty-four hours of they will die. The handsome boy does, his girl serves time in a US prison, then is returned to Colombia."
The book notes: "In view of Colombia's attempted crackdown on druglords, this movie filmed in Bogotá and Barranquilla in 1986 is at least timely. Colombian couple Nick Corri and Madeleine Stowe want to leave their country for New York to find a better life. They are offered free passage by David Carradine if they will do him a little favor — smuggle a lot of cocaine into the States."
The result was no consensus . Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Apart from being a disputed draftification, this TV series is only referenced by TV listings/TV gossip column style material, none of which are useful. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano
22:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bizarrap discography#2022–2023. ✗ plicit 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Bold Redirect was objected to. Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are a single promo and 3 primary (youtube, lyrics). BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no material that can be properly sourced (all promo) and merged. No objection if a consensus forms for a redirect after delete. // Timothy :: talk 18:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
23:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Since this disambiguation page consists of only the primary topic and the subsidiary topic, it should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. Even the hatnote atop the primary topic, Dom Aleixo, points to the subsidiary topic, not to the dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Nonexistent football seasons cancelled during World War II. Lack sourcing. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they both relate to nonexistent seasons that fail GNG and NSEASONS:
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is or what the unifying principle is but it sure seems like WP:OR to me. WP:BEFORE search was unsurprisingly all over the place with things that seem unrelated to whatever this is. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Goodbye Volcano High. – Joe ( talk) 05:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll place my original PROD reason here as I believe it's still valid.
I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards
Goodbye Volcano High. Therefore I believe that keeping this topic as just a mention in GVH's article is enough.
My original PROD was endorsed twice: once by Zxcvbnm mentioning that it fails WP:GNG which I agree with, and once more by QuicoleJR mentioning that there is no significant coverage, which I also agree with.
The PROD was contested six days after the original proposition by User:CJ-Moki, the author of the article, citing an inconclusive discussion on the talk page. I believe that this article should be deleted because there is zero coverage ‘‘about’’ it. There is only coverage about its controversy regarding the game that it is parodying, and therefore it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Galo223344 ( talk) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not going to give Snoot Game more coverage than it is worth.
The result was keep . – Joe ( talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Student editor who refuses draftification and moved it over AfC decline. Could possibly be merged, but I don't think that will accomplish class goals, so we're here. Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
{{
R from founder}}
until it is clear she has independent notability from the sorority's foundation.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff)
14:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).Our notability guideline is a broader consideration than WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC, and includes context and what may best help readers. For this subject, she is known for her work with others to found the sorority, and secondary sources seem to present them as a group with similar depth of biographical information and context; for example, they have the same historical context, have been honored with a monument, and were awarded honorary degrees. While there are details that distinguish Little's role as a primary founder, drafter of the pledge, first president, etc, I think developing a Founders section or subsection in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article, along with adding relevant content to other parts of that article, provides the most contextual understanding of the topics, and per WP:SUMMARY, it may eventually make sense to create a standalone article for the founders, with a link and a summary paragraph in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article. For now, the content would first need to be developed to assess how to proceed. From my view, a permanent stub for Little is less helpful for readers than a redirect to an article with contextual significance. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Badminton player with no claim to meeting WP:NBAD and no evidence of passing WP:GNG. According to BWF she has never won a match on the tour and has a win-loss of 0/8 having not played since 2018, which gives me little confidence that future notability is likely. I found a trivial mention of her in Radio Havana and Escambray but this type of coverage doesn't meet GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . – Joe ( talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Not a notable organization. I can find no secondary sourcing that does anything more than mention the club. There are two books on the topic, but one is for sure published by the organization itself, and the other seems to be. Update: I just saw the first AfD, where I found no actual evidence of notability, except for one minor article. Drmies ( talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yusufzai#Subtribes. ✗ plicit 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently unsourced, and I can find no reliable sources. The tribe may exist, but it certainly appears to fail WP:GNG. If reliable sources can be found, I would suggest merging with Pashtun. Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article seems to be created with purpose of promotion of “Miller Shuffle Algorithm” presented in the only source cited. A web search suggests there is no systematic use of the term “Pseudorandom index generator” outside of that source and connected pages ( WP:NOR). Moreover, the username of the article's author coincides with the username of the corresponding github page [6] ( WP:SELFPROMOTE). Nikita Medved ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Was a recurring character (not main cast) in two notable television shows. However, notability is not inherited. What little coverage I can find is either not significant, not independant, or from an unreliable source. Due to his recent guest appearance on a podcast, there has been some recent articles about McNulty, however they mostly just quote him and summarize what he said. -- Mike 🗩 18:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . ✗ plicit 00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Another contested prod without improvement. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successorsor
created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But these reviews actually show the contrary: for the one book that has three reviews, two of them criticize it for being unuseful - which does rather explain the low citation counts. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Another contested prod without improvement.Editors really should understand what "uncontroversial" means. By rights, no article that has been prodded should even have a chance of being kept if taken to AfD. Prodding is not a way to get around taking a possibly notable article to AfD, which is what some editors seem to see it as. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Believe it goes against WP:NALBUMS 1keyhole ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be another run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge, with a two-line, one-non-independently sourced, resume-like article. BD2412 T 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be another run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing more than typical local judicial offices. Being presiding judge of a municipal court is not an office of encyclopedic significance. BD2412 T 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence that this regional league passes WP:GNG. Even if it did, this article is utter junk (it lists an auction in 2017, despite apparently being founded in 2009, and defunct that year too according to List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India) and should be deleted per WP:TNT Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As I've listed on the talk page, the sources are either from the subject's own website or company, or have only brief mentions of the subject's name. I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:BIO. John of Reading ( talk) 15:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
One-line biography of a seemingly run-of-the-mill state court trial judge. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This also seems like a run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing in the subject's short resume-like article to indicate encyclopedic notability. He was born, served in the war, got an education, was a deputy attorney general (but not actually attorney general of the state), was district attorney of a county, served on regional trial and appellate courts, retired, and died. He had a famous sister. That's all there seems to be to say. BD2412 T 15:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with heavy reliance on primary(-associated) sources. (Also a possible diploma mill...) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Unable to find any significant coverage of the author to pass WP:GNG. Plenty of sites list him and his books like a bibliography and a few have a couple of sentences about the author but nothing coming close to "significant coverage."
There are reviews of his stories/books but nothing that would qualify for any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . The rough consensus seems to be that even if this is a hoax, it's a notable one. – Joe ( talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is filled with unreliable sources. References one & five are tabloids, reference six is a YouTube video, & reference seven is a blog. The only reliables ones seem to be Buckrail (2 & 4) & "Only in your state (3)." It's also suspicious that there are no newspaper articles of this individual from 1868, when she was arrested. I've looked on Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, & the Times digital archive, & I've found nothing. The only sources are from 100+ years after her alleged capture. It seems like a hoax. Silent-Rains ( talk) 19:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. ✗ plicit 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. First source is a dead link. LibStar ( talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be a museum about Ghana, or Mexico, or a dab if both are notable? It us unclear whether consensus on the latter has been established
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one last spin
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Niklas Sundin. ✗ plicit 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG ~ T P W 14:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This article appears to be about an education initiative in Brazil. It is sourced only to what appears to be a press release The link is dead but an archive is available. The article itself is very poorly written as it appears to have been edited by editors with insufficient English language capability. My own searches for sourcing is hampered by having to rely on machine translation of Portuguese, but what I can find are just enrolment announcements. This project does not meet notability. Whpq ( talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk)
13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk)
13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG, BASIC and NBAD. Only WP:ROUTINE match reports can be found about him (in Thai), so it does not have SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus . Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk)
13:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 11:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Lack of Notability and Insufficient Reliable Sources: Although the article provides some information about Kennedy Chiduziem Ekezie-Joseph's background, accomplishments, and career, it does not demonstrate his notability as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article mainly relies on a limited number of sources, some of which may not be considered reliable or independent. Edit.pdf ( talk) 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:47, 18 April 2023 (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 00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Insufficient Notability and Reliance on Primary Sources: The article presents information that fails to establish person's notability as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Edit.pdf ( talk) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . – Joe ( talk) 05:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Single source, without enough information to pass WP:VERIFY. Was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. I asked User:Folly Mox to take a look and see if they could improve the sourcing, and they did work on the article, but as they said on their talk page, the subject is a bit out of their area of expertise. I can't find any in-depth sourcing, so it fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
What amounts to a contested draft, since editor simply recreated the same article in mainspace, without any improvements over the draft. Zero in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Contested draft, with zero improvement and zero in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Some mentions, some unreliable sources (like House of Pop). Can't find any in-depth coverage about them in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Already been deleted twice in the last 3 years through AfD. Onel5969 TT me 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Another contested draft returned to mainspace without improvement. Zero in-depth sources from independent reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if this meets GNG (which is debatable) the cleaned up article is still a massive WP:NOT violation, which based on the deletion policy is ground for removal from Wikipedia via deletion on its own ( WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL6.) I submit to the community that this is the best the article is ever going to look, and even in this state, it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and is outside of scope, making deletion the only valid way to fix the problem. TonyBallioni ( talk) 07:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger versus the lion was a popular topic of discussion by hunters, naturalists, artists, and poets, and it continues to inspire the popular imagination in the present day. Lions and tigers have competed in the wild where their ranges have overlapped. They have also been pitted against each other in captivity, either as deliberate contests or as a result of accidental encounters.
...
Leo1pard ( talk) 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 03:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Nominated this for deletion via PROD, but apparently it had already been AfD'd in 2005 and deleted. Think thats too long ago to G4. Sending to AfD instead. My rationale for the PROD, and now this AfD is: "Non-notable university club. Coverage is predominately local press and a novelty. Does not meet our standards for inclusion." TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources to not exist on the subject of this article. Waters.Justin ( talk) 03:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
A series of dictionary definitions with an honest-to-goodness directory list. I don't even know where to start or why this page exists or if this is a notable concept or a neologism (it may not be if it is in Indian law). I would want to see SIGCOV of the concept as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (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. Sourcing is insufficient. Sole input/edits has suspicious overlap with now blocked creator. Star Mississippi 12:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
07:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Film is unsourced since 11years. NP83 ( talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus . TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of a notable populated place here; the best source I could find was this which mentions a sheep camp at the base of a hill called Tah-chee. Satellite views show what appears to be a cluster of ranching-type buildings, and topos do not show the name prior to 2011. – dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
21:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:29, 18 April 2023 (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! 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This tornado lacks notability; it does not even need a section in the main tornado article page. Chess Eric 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . ✗ plicit 11:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I first saw this article when I was surfing the article about the film, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever only to find the short description and the filmography about the actress. I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist: AfD discussion was never transcluded to the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
dudhhr
talk
contribs (he/they)
01:08, 18 April 2023 (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 00:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Outside of the Michigan Daily ( archive) and AllBusiness.com-hosted Billboard ( archive) articles, everything else on page and what I found through my search is only passing mentions. Article also has apparently severe CoI issues and would likely need an overhaul anyway. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
2007-07 ✗ CSD G11
The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn) . Closing early, all !votes are for keep and nominator agrees to withdraw. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 02:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from The Miami Herald (via Newspapers.com). It needs one more review to be eligible for article status. The fact that it is Tim Allen's debut film appearance does not make it notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator ( talk) 23:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The film review notes: "Tropical Snow is that bleakest of low-budget entities -- an exploitation B- movie with a social conscience. ... Once Tavo and Marina ally themselves with Oskar, the risks of the trade and their own stupidity quickly bring them to a bad end. Tropical Snow is directed and acted with the sort of solemn incompetence that only the truly untalented can achieve. Even the sex scenes, which are surprisingly explicit, have a sad, desperate quality. Apart from Carradine, the actors are as unconvincing as the film is boring."
The film review notes: " Tropical Snow tells the story of Tavo (Nick Corri) and Marina (Madeleine Stowe), two Colombians who flee poverty in Bogota for the promised land of New York City. The film manages to address anxieties facing illegal aliens, but it doesn't translate them into powerful drama until the last 40 minutes. ... Writer-director Ciro Duran uses pat story conventions early on, and even an offensive cliche -- while Tavo and Marina are strolling through Bogota, two Colombian women slug it out in the street, apparently because hot-blooded Latin spitfires are supposed to do this. ... Tropical Snow owes an obvious debt to El Norte, the 1983 drama about a brother and sister who flee Guatemala for Los Angeles. The new film fails to match its predecessor's poetic strength -- until the end. Though topical, Duran's film sometimes seems as simplistic as the metaphor in his title."
The film review notes: "Along with the movie's portrayal of hot-blooded Latinos-- every man seems to have only one thing on his mind-- there are other insensitive stereotypes. ... The three leads speak English (except for their peculiar habit of referring to New York as Nuevo York). Everyone else speaks Spanish-- just watch their lips-- that is overdubbed with English. The effect is disorienting. The best thing about Tropical Snow is that it's beautifully photographed. Eduardo Serra's cinematography gives everything, even the hillside shanty towns, a tarnished glow. This Bogota doesn't look like such a bad place, and that odd detail works at cross-purposes to the story."
The film review notes: "In view of Colombia's war on local druglords, tropical becomes topical in this sluggish "exposé" on cocaine smuggling, helmed by Colombian filmmaker Ciro Duran. ... Tech credits are okay with attention paid to sleazy barroom atmosphere and hazy Bogota streets. Acting is also all right. Abundant nudity may hinder tv sales, which seems like the most obvious market, especially with current media focus on Colombia's cocaine connection. -Lent."
The book notes: "Seen as a "topical" entry because the US and Colombia fought the cartels together, Cird Duran produced the saga of cocaine smuggling shot in Bogota. Noting that this was a fictitious story, it also claimed to be an everyday occurrence. Focused on two attractive youths who spend much screen time enjoying each other's bodies, they dream of going to the US to earn dollars for themselves and their families. Unable to obtain a tourist visa, a drug dealer promises them one if they will simply carry some cocaine to JFK airport for them. The scenes are graphic, boy and girl are made to swallow over a hundred units of the drug fitted into the cut finger of surgical rubber gloves. A gruesome process at best, they must pass the material within twenty-four hours of they will die. The handsome boy does, his girl serves time in a US prison, then is returned to Colombia."
The book notes: "In view of Colombia's attempted crackdown on druglords, this movie filmed in Bogotá and Barranquilla in 1986 is at least timely. Colombian couple Nick Corri and Madeleine Stowe want to leave their country for New York to find a better life. They are offered free passage by David Carradine if they will do him a little favor — smuggle a lot of cocaine into the States."
The result was no consensus . Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Apart from being a disputed draftification, this TV series is only referenced by TV listings/TV gossip column style material, none of which are useful. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Salvio
giuliano
22:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bizarrap discography#2022–2023. ✗ plicit 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Bold Redirect was objected to. Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are a single promo and 3 primary (youtube, lyrics). BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no material that can be properly sourced (all promo) and merged. No objection if a consensus forms for a redirect after delete. // Timothy :: talk 18:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
23:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Since this disambiguation page consists of only the primary topic and the subsidiary topic, it should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. Even the hatnote atop the primary topic, Dom Aleixo, points to the subsidiary topic, not to the dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Nonexistent football seasons cancelled during World War II. Lack sourcing. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they both relate to nonexistent seasons that fail GNG and NSEASONS:
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is or what the unifying principle is but it sure seems like WP:OR to me. WP:BEFORE search was unsurprisingly all over the place with things that seem unrelated to whatever this is. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Goodbye Volcano High. – Joe ( talk) 05:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll place my original PROD reason here as I believe it's still valid.
I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards
Goodbye Volcano High. Therefore I believe that keeping this topic as just a mention in GVH's article is enough.
My original PROD was endorsed twice: once by Zxcvbnm mentioning that it fails WP:GNG which I agree with, and once more by QuicoleJR mentioning that there is no significant coverage, which I also agree with.
The PROD was contested six days after the original proposition by User:CJ-Moki, the author of the article, citing an inconclusive discussion on the talk page. I believe that this article should be deleted because there is zero coverage ‘‘about’’ it. There is only coverage about its controversy regarding the game that it is parodying, and therefore it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Galo223344 ( talk) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not going to give Snoot Game more coverage than it is worth.
The result was keep . – Joe ( talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Student editor who refuses draftification and moved it over AfC decline. Could possibly be merged, but I don't think that will accomplish class goals, so we're here. Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
{{
R from founder}}
until it is clear she has independent notability from the sorority's foundation.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff)
14:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).Our notability guideline is a broader consideration than WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC, and includes context and what may best help readers. For this subject, she is known for her work with others to found the sorority, and secondary sources seem to present them as a group with similar depth of biographical information and context; for example, they have the same historical context, have been honored with a monument, and were awarded honorary degrees. While there are details that distinguish Little's role as a primary founder, drafter of the pledge, first president, etc, I think developing a Founders section or subsection in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article, along with adding relevant content to other parts of that article, provides the most contextual understanding of the topics, and per WP:SUMMARY, it may eventually make sense to create a standalone article for the founders, with a link and a summary paragraph in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article. For now, the content would first need to be developed to assess how to proceed. From my view, a permanent stub for Little is less helpful for readers than a redirect to an article with contextual significance. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Badminton player with no claim to meeting WP:NBAD and no evidence of passing WP:GNG. According to BWF she has never won a match on the tour and has a win-loss of 0/8 having not played since 2018, which gives me little confidence that future notability is likely. I found a trivial mention of her in Radio Havana and Escambray but this type of coverage doesn't meet GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . – Joe ( talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Not a notable organization. I can find no secondary sourcing that does anything more than mention the club. There are two books on the topic, but one is for sure published by the organization itself, and the other seems to be. Update: I just saw the first AfD, where I found no actual evidence of notability, except for one minor article. Drmies ( talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yusufzai#Subtribes. ✗ plicit 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently unsourced, and I can find no reliable sources. The tribe may exist, but it certainly appears to fail WP:GNG. If reliable sources can be found, I would suggest merging with Pashtun. Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Article seems to be created with purpose of promotion of “Miller Shuffle Algorithm” presented in the only source cited. A web search suggests there is no systematic use of the term “Pseudorandom index generator” outside of that source and connected pages ( WP:NOR). Moreover, the username of the article's author coincides with the username of the corresponding github page [6] ( WP:SELFPROMOTE). Nikita Medved ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Was a recurring character (not main cast) in two notable television shows. However, notability is not inherited. What little coverage I can find is either not significant, not independant, or from an unreliable source. Due to his recent guest appearance on a podcast, there has been some recent articles about McNulty, however they mostly just quote him and summarize what he said. -- Mike 🗩 18:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . ✗ plicit 00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Another contested prod without improvement. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successorsor
created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But these reviews actually show the contrary: for the one book that has three reviews, two of them criticize it for being unuseful - which does rather explain the low citation counts. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Another contested prod without improvement.Editors really should understand what "uncontroversial" means. By rights, no article that has been prodded should even have a chance of being kept if taken to AfD. Prodding is not a way to get around taking a possibly notable article to AfD, which is what some editors seem to see it as. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Believe it goes against WP:NALBUMS 1keyhole ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be another run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge, with a two-line, one-non-independently sourced, resume-like article. BD2412 T 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be another run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing more than typical local judicial offices. Being presiding judge of a municipal court is not an office of encyclopedic significance. BD2412 T 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence that this regional league passes WP:GNG. Even if it did, this article is utter junk (it lists an auction in 2017, despite apparently being founded in 2009, and defunct that year too according to List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India) and should be deleted per WP:TNT Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As I've listed on the talk page, the sources are either from the subject's own website or company, or have only brief mentions of the subject's name. I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:BIO. John of Reading ( talk) 15:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
One-line biography of a seemingly run-of-the-mill state court trial judge. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This also seems like a run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing in the subject's short resume-like article to indicate encyclopedic notability. He was born, served in the war, got an education, was a deputy attorney general (but not actually attorney general of the state), was district attorney of a county, served on regional trial and appellate courts, retired, and died. He had a famous sister. That's all there seems to be to say. BD2412 T 15:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with heavy reliance on primary(-associated) sources. (Also a possible diploma mill...) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Unable to find any significant coverage of the author to pass WP:GNG. Plenty of sites list him and his books like a bibliography and a few have a couple of sentences about the author but nothing coming close to "significant coverage."
There are reviews of his stories/books but nothing that would qualify for any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . The rough consensus seems to be that even if this is a hoax, it's a notable one. – Joe ( talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is filled with unreliable sources. References one & five are tabloids, reference six is a YouTube video, & reference seven is a blog. The only reliables ones seem to be Buckrail (2 & 4) & "Only in your state (3)." It's also suspicious that there are no newspaper articles of this individual from 1868, when she was arrested. I've looked on Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, & the Times digital archive, & I've found nothing. The only sources are from 100+ years after her alleged capture. It seems like a hoax. Silent-Rains ( talk) 19:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. ✗ plicit 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. First source is a dead link. LibStar ( talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be a museum about Ghana, or Mexico, or a dab if both are notable? It us unclear whether consensus on the latter has been established
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one last spin
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Niklas Sundin. ✗ plicit 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG ~ T P W 14:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This article appears to be about an education initiative in Brazil. It is sourced only to what appears to be a press release The link is dead but an archive is available. The article itself is very poorly written as it appears to have been edited by editors with insufficient English language capability. My own searches for sourcing is hampered by having to rely on machine translation of Portuguese, but what I can find are just enrolment announcements. This project does not meet notability. Whpq ( talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk)
13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk)
13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG, BASIC and NBAD. Only WP:ROUTINE match reports can be found about him (in Thai), so it does not have SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus . Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk)
13:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 11:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Lack of Notability and Insufficient Reliable Sources: Although the article provides some information about Kennedy Chiduziem Ekezie-Joseph's background, accomplishments, and career, it does not demonstrate his notability as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article mainly relies on a limited number of sources, some of which may not be considered reliable or independent. Edit.pdf ( talk) 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:47, 18 April 2023 (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 00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Insufficient Notability and Reliance on Primary Sources: The article presents information that fails to establish person's notability as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Edit.pdf ( talk) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . – Joe ( talk) 05:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Single source, without enough information to pass WP:VERIFY. Was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. I asked User:Folly Mox to take a look and see if they could improve the sourcing, and they did work on the article, but as they said on their talk page, the subject is a bit out of their area of expertise. I can't find any in-depth sourcing, so it fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
What amounts to a contested draft, since editor simply recreated the same article in mainspace, without any improvements over the draft. Zero in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Contested draft, with zero improvement and zero in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Some mentions, some unreliable sources (like House of Pop). Can't find any in-depth coverage about them in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Already been deleted twice in the last 3 years through AfD. Onel5969 TT me 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Another contested draft returned to mainspace without improvement. Zero in-depth sources from independent reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 12:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if this meets GNG (which is debatable) the cleaned up article is still a massive WP:NOT violation, which based on the deletion policy is ground for removal from Wikipedia via deletion on its own ( WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL6.) I submit to the community that this is the best the article is ever going to look, and even in this state, it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and is outside of scope, making deletion the only valid way to fix the problem. TonyBallioni ( talk) 07:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger versus the lion was a popular topic of discussion by hunters, naturalists, artists, and poets, and it continues to inspire the popular imagination in the present day. Lions and tigers have competed in the wild where their ranges have overlapped. They have also been pitted against each other in captivity, either as deliberate contests or as a result of accidental encounters.
...
Leo1pard ( talk) 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 03:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Nominated this for deletion via PROD, but apparently it had already been AfD'd in 2005 and deleted. Think thats too long ago to G4. Sending to AfD instead. My rationale for the PROD, and now this AfD is: "Non-notable university club. Coverage is predominately local press and a novelty. Does not meet our standards for inclusion." TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources to not exist on the subject of this article. Waters.Justin ( talk) 03:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete . ✗ plicit 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
A series of dictionary definitions with an honest-to-goodness directory list. I don't even know where to start or why this page exists or if this is a notable concept or a neologism (it may not be if it is in Indian law). I would want to see SIGCOV of the concept as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (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. Sourcing is insufficient. Sole input/edits has suspicious overlap with now blocked creator. Star Mississippi 12:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
07:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Film is unsourced since 11years. NP83 ( talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus . TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of a notable populated place here; the best source I could find was this which mentions a sheep camp at the base of a hill called Tah-chee. Satellite views show what appears to be a cluster of ranching-type buildings, and topos do not show the name prior to 2011. – dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
21:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
02:29, 18 April 2023 (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! 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This tornado lacks notability; it does not even need a section in the main tornado article page. Chess Eric 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep . ✗ plicit 11:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I first saw this article when I was surfing the article about the film, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever only to find the short description and the filmography about the actress. I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist: AfD discussion was never transcluded to the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
dudhhr
talk
contribs (he/they)
01:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)