![]() |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Sole source is primary. Tagged non-notable for years without improvement * Pppery * it has begun... 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar ( talk) 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar ( talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork. LibStar ( talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 11:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a not-yet-released film, not
properly sourced as the subject of sufficient
reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at
WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because they've entered the production pipeline -- the minimum notability bar for most films is that they've been released, and films are supposed to get articles in advance of release only if they can be sourced to a substantial volume of production coverage, such that even if they collapsed and never came out at all they'd still likely be permanently notable anyway (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films). But this just cites a tiny smattering of production coverage, nowhere near enough to confer permanent notability this far in advance of release.
In addition, the page's title is completely
unverified in any sources at all, and appears to be an
original research attempt at inventing an English title for a film that doesn't have any known English title yet -- but "we don't even know what title the page should actually be at yet" is another reason why this would be too soon. ("Come Back to Life" would be a more appropriately idiomatic translation of the film's native-language title, but that's not properly verified as the English-title of this film either — remember that foreign-language films' English titles are not always literal translations of their original-language titles, so we can't just assume that its English title will necessarily be "Come Back to Life" just because its Spanish title is slated to be "Vuelve a la vida", and have to wait until a reliable source verifies that before we can title an article about it that way.) The film also has no article at all on the Spanish Wikipedia yet, even though it can hardly be more notable to the English-speaking world than it is in its own country.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opportunity to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm in a really awkward situation here that I feel like in many respects the deletion argument is probably more persuasive overall, assessing it as the closer. That being said, there is significantly more support for the keep argument. Trying to balance this is hard to do and find a clear outcome, and I've landed on No Consensus as a result of that. Daniel ( talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an article for a non-notable real estate agent in the USA. All of the citations seem to be to SEO churnalism sources; reprinters of press releases. Wikipedia should not be an extension of an SEO operation. Tagishsimon ( talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was made in user-space, moved to main space, draftified, and moved back, and moved through various names, so its deletion is clearly controversial, at least with its creator. It has already, under another name, been nominated for speedy deletion. The problem with it is that it's extremely contentious, but lacks any inline citations. I'd have no problem with the creator incubating it properly in draft space or their own space and putting proper references, but to dump this uncited into main-space is completely wrong. I don't know if it should be speedied, draftified, or discussed properly, so we're here. Elemimele ( talk) 21:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
As noted at the WikiProject Mathematics discussion page, this is original research. All of the discussions on the article's Talk page, going back to 2011, are about how it's not a real topic. A prod that was endorsed was then removed. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It could be argued that we already have terms for the concepts described here, like dynamical systems, group actions, modules, and vector spaces. However, there is still no other terminology available for an external monoid for which this terminology gives us a concise expression. Above all else, this is a reason this term should be of use in the mathematical community.XOR'easter ( talk) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Public image of Javier Milei. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
None of those "controversies" have any actual substance to them, or is even worth a standalone article. All of them are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X". All of them lasted for just some days and died as old news, without any actual consequences. In this day and age, all this stuff is just routine. Heads of state are always saying something, and someone is always reacting to those things said, even if just for a couple of hours.
Note as well that a page "controversial stuff involving a BLP" can easily get carried away into undesired directions.
And note that Trump and Putin, the most controversial world leaders of recent times, do not have any similar articles. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations. Daniel ( talk) 11:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
No sources cited. Seems to be more of a definition rather than entity. Google search provides only mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did find three mentions in this report (page 115) but still not notable enough to warrant an article Elshad ( talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Merge target article here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Original close was redirect with the history preserved to facilitate a merge, but Siroxo requested a merge close and tag and, as I don't see that being a huge difference I've done so. Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an *extremely* minor character that, while it has some development information, lacks any actual discussion as a fictional character to demonstrate notability. In writing articles for wikipedia it's important to demonstrate *why* a subject meets notability through significant coverage discussing the topic and illustrating people discussing a subject and why it's important outside of the scope of the main subject.
While this is an obscure character in the He-Man franchise, there's no indication of that importance. Furthermore it's not an isolated instance of an obscure character in the franchise being revisited as a toy much later. And as a fictional character, which should be the most important aspect of such an article...there's nothing.
The whole subject could be covered in a list entry with nothing lost Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
After seeing the consensus of the Afd for Jette's successor as United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, this position does not confer notability by itself. Independent sources are just not there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sohom (
talk)
16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
As explained there, this started off as undeclared paid editing by Biografix ( talk · contribs). Then Dszarek1234 ( talk · contribs) and 141.116.106.218 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP address from the Office of the Secretary of Defense) stepped in saying " As the Digital Media Analyst with ASA(ALT), I've been tasked by the Director of External Communications to scrub Dr. Jette's wiki page and use his official Department of Defense bio.".
Then after the first AFD discussion in 2018 a single-purpose account Acquisition1954 ( talk · contribs) and 141.116.250.235 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.107.56 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.54.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (more OSD IP addresses) got at the article in 2019 and filled it with all sorts of unverifiable stuff like what the innermost thoughts of the article subject, coincidentally who was born in 1954 and worked in acquisition, were at age 5.
We should get rid of this entire edit history.
There have been no contributions apart from the usual mechanical fiddlings for categories and whatnot by anyone else. There's no writing here that hasn't either had or outright declared a conflict of interest, and there has been at least one direct statement of intent to violate our fundamental NPOV and verifiability content policies (which latter the article now hugely does — at least the undeclared paid editor gave a pretense of adhering to the verifiability policy, but the "tasked" people and the people with the coincidental usernames and Pentagon IP addresses haven't even bothered at all to tell readers how they can check, say, what this person did as a football mascot in the early 1970s) by the people who wrote this content.
The result was redirect to Ranmoor with history preserved for a "slim merge" if needed. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This building doesn't appear to meet WP:N. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor, but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in. Boleyn ( talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
17:53, 5 December 2023 (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!
19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus on whether to redirect this, or to move it ito a proposed article about its successor. Suggest those discussions continue on the Talk page as I don't see a 4th relist establishing any clear path. Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability requirement. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a suggestion to divide an article, is this the target article you are suggesting? It's not clear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Listed competitions do not seem to establish notability – winning a Résisprint International does not seem to fulfill GNG or NSPORT as a "major international competition". InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Subject is a You Tuber for gaming and fails GNG where by subject does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talk about the subject in length and in depth for verification. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 23:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo ( talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
No refs on the page, I don't see enough independent RS to show notability. JMWt ( talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. BEFORE search turns up few mentions of the organization outside its own website and related business websites, and no reliable, third party sources. Geoff | Who, me? 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable business professional. Related companies are not notable. Seaweed ( talk) 15:41, 12 December 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. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. Let'srun ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. Clear consensus not to retain below (delete + merge), and probably a consensus to merge independent of delete !votes regardless of its preference as an ATD. The eventual redirect can be re-targetted to a different section within that article, or a different article, if so desired. Daniel ( talk) 11:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Not notable enough for standalone article, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT. Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado, which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to XBoard. Daniel ( talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't find any reliable sources. QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Commenting. I suggest merging or redirecting. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk) 14:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Numerically, we have no consensus, with about 40% of opinions in favor of deleting and 60% in favor of keeping the article.
In terms of strength of argument, many "keep" opinions invoke the WP:N guideline. These opinions must be discounted, because lack of notability of the topic is not the reason for which deletion is sought. Instead, the nomination argues that the contents of the article constitute original research by synthesis, i.e., "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" ( WP:SYNTH). In assessing the strength of arguments made here, we must examine whether this argument is made or rebutted convincingly. I find that neither is the case here.
To make a cogent SYNTH case, the "delete" side would have needed to address the specific sources cited in the article, and they would have needed to show how exactly these sources say one thing and the article text says another, and then they would have needed to show that these defects cannot be remedied except by deletion of the article ( WP:ATD). But the "delete" side has failed to make their case in this way. They merely allege, but do not demonstrate, inadmissible synthesis.
The "keep" side does not really do better: with the exception of Homerethegreat and a very few others, nobody really addresses the specific sources cited in the article, and how well they correspond to the article text (as would have been needed to rebut a WP:SYNTH deletion rationale). Instead, they make sweeping allegations mostly about how notable the topic is, which, as explained above, is beside the point here.
Consequently, there is no informed consensus to delete the article. A merger discussion or a more convincing renomination for deletion remain possible. Sandstein 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This looks like a re-creation of an article that was deleted two months ago ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis). The current article suffers from similar issues. The majority of the text in this article is WP:SYNTH, in that the source cited doesn't explicitly say that the Hamas-lead attack constituted genocide. In fact, many of the sources predate the attack, so they can't possibly be making that assertion. The few sources that do explicitly state f should be covered under Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide. VR talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
As a share of Israel’s population, it is equivalent to 12 September 11th attacks—a daily mortality rate exceeded only by full-scale wars, genocides or natural disasters.That is not an accusation Hamas committed genocide on 7 October. That is, apparently, the result of somebody googling "genocide Hamas October 7" and then not reading the results before posting them here. So for the people claiming the list of sources support the article, did you even read those sources? nableezy - 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable Singer. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Uchana Amit is a notable Singer worked with Badshah here is his instagram ID for reference @theuchana, you can also check YouTube for his songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parth1221 ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 December 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 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable organisation. Issues have been left unaddressed since 2015. Sources is about the criticism of the TV network, nothing on the website at all except for a dead Facebook link.
A CSD would be worthier for this non-notable organization SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Had been dePRODded previously; nominated due to issues with general notability and lack of significant coverage. Sources do not assert notability, not even a single review. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 11:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable WP:BIO. In a WP:BEFORE search all I can find is a ton of self-promotional interviews and obvious paid placement, including deprecated sources like WP:THESUN and WP:DAILYEXPRESS, but also the cited "contributor" article from WP:FORBESCON, and the Bangkok Post interview cited here which is at least clearly marked as PR. His charity work has only routine local newspaper coverage. The rest is passing mentions such as the Reuters and Huffpost articles cited about him joining charity fundraisers, articles written by him, and unreliable sources like news blogs. Speedy deleted G11 once at Samuel leach (created by same editor), and this one is borderline. Wikishovel ( talk) 11:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Fails to meet either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. The only claim which comes close to satisfying CREATIVE is sourced to a press release. SmartSE ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The University of Nottingham Ningbo China as an ATD. Daniel ( talk) 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References are all primary, and I couldn't establish notability with Google. — Panamitsu (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. Speedied G11 three times Draft:Skye Aurelia, but this one isn't eligible for speedy. WP:BEFORE search turned up passing mentions for modelling credits in WP:RS, but no significant secondary coverage - the best I can find is the Harper's Bazaar Serbia softball interview cited here, but an interview is a primary source. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable WP:CORP, no significant coverage online from reliable sources, only passing mentions found in business listings in a few languages. Original version was highly promotional, and there's a previous history of this from a blocked account a year ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LÀCRIMA DAIRY, and the accompanying article and draft history. Rather than bother with a SPI, it seemed better to clean it up and take it to AFD, but there's no real sign of notability here. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Randykitty ( talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic topic. We don't make lists of possible views; the broader topic is covered at Islamophobia. Fermiboson ( talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination(emphasis in original). I will change my !vote above. It does sorta raise the question of what Draftify is for, though. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This short-lived agency only existed for four years (2005-2009). No sources are cited other than the laws that governed it. This article fails WP:ORGSIG since there is no outside coverage of it. DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. So is this notable? I can't find sources talking about it. There is a touch more about the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which also has no page (not the same thing). There was a Welsh Centre for Rural Health and an institute for Health Informatics that were funded by Welsh Government but independent. There were a whole plethora of Welsh Health organisations over the years, all of which would be scraping the barrel to find their way beyond permastub status as pages. What is missing, I think, is some kind of page looking at the healthcare landscape in Wales. We have NHS Wales but that is largely the current situation. The Wales Centre for Health could be mentioned in an as yet unwritten page looking at the historical situation, but there is not notability for a page in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Small mall that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Only cites two sources, one of which is its website. Very little coverage available online DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable Linux distribution with almost no reliable sources available DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. This is not even a varsity team. It's a "club" team that played three games against " junior varsity" squads from three small colleges, losing two of those games. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced for over a decade, found no WP:SIGCOV online. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, but deprodded with the rationale: "8 seasons on national network may meet WP:NTV" ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors plus an assessment of recently identified sources in this discussion (if they are accessible online).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity or third-party coverage. Article has remained in its current state since 2006 creation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:25, 28 November 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)
03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get more opinions about recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Subject is not notable. I cannot find mention of it in either of the sources, nor the external links. A search for more sources turns up no mentions in any reliable sources. Admittedly the topic is difficult to search for since it is unlikely to be called the "Pentaapeirogonal tiling". It's more likely to be referred to by symbol or diagram, which are difficult to search for. It is however unlikely that this receives any significant note, because it doesn't appear to have any unique properties among the uniform tilings of the hyperbolic plane. All the properties in the article are pretty trivially derived from its Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.
It would be better served as a single entry in a list of uniform tilings if any of these properties could even be sourced. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
*Merge with
Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane. Seems this is related with uniform tilings so probably can be moved there.
killer
bee
05:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft"
, especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
As for "my subjective opinion"
, when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
So, @ Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
"an authoritative source"as you put it?
"I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After
User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fail WP:GNG. No more sources found in online which can pass GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️ Let's Talk ! 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject seemingly played one game for the Jamaica women's national football team a few years ago. However, she does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion. I found this article from the Jamaica Observer, which is a good start, but everything else that came up in my searches are passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Venezuelan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which are mostly quotes from the subject. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable writer. Self-promo article, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper ( talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 8 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. From a wp:notability standpoint, there are no references which cover the topic as such. Regarding being a list article, there is really nothing that says what it actually is. What is an "Indonesian school"? Without that, IMO, besides failing wp:notability it really has no specific defined content or sourcing that included schools meet that non-existent criteria. North8000 ( talk) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colonial Clash. Daniel ( talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Sole source is primary. Tagged non-notable for years without improvement * Pppery * it has begun... 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar ( talk) 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar ( talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork. LibStar ( talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 11:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON article about a not-yet-released film, not
properly sourced as the subject of sufficient
reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at
WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because they've entered the production pipeline -- the minimum notability bar for most films is that they've been released, and films are supposed to get articles in advance of release only if they can be sourced to a substantial volume of production coverage, such that even if they collapsed and never came out at all they'd still likely be permanently notable anyway (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films). But this just cites a tiny smattering of production coverage, nowhere near enough to confer permanent notability this far in advance of release.
In addition, the page's title is completely
unverified in any sources at all, and appears to be an
original research attempt at inventing an English title for a film that doesn't have any known English title yet -- but "we don't even know what title the page should actually be at yet" is another reason why this would be too soon. ("Come Back to Life" would be a more appropriately idiomatic translation of the film's native-language title, but that's not properly verified as the English-title of this film either — remember that foreign-language films' English titles are not always literal translations of their original-language titles, so we can't just assume that its English title will necessarily be "Come Back to Life" just because its Spanish title is slated to be "Vuelve a la vida", and have to wait until a reliable source verifies that before we can title an article about it that way.) The film also has no article at all on the Spanish Wikipedia yet, even though it can hardly be more notable to the English-speaking world than it is in its own country.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opportunity to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0 (
talk)
22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm in a really awkward situation here that I feel like in many respects the deletion argument is probably more persuasive overall, assessing it as the closer. That being said, there is significantly more support for the keep argument. Trying to balance this is hard to do and find a clear outcome, and I've landed on No Consensus as a result of that. Daniel ( talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an article for a non-notable real estate agent in the USA. All of the citations seem to be to SEO churnalism sources; reprinters of press releases. Wikipedia should not be an extension of an SEO operation. Tagishsimon ( talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was made in user-space, moved to main space, draftified, and moved back, and moved through various names, so its deletion is clearly controversial, at least with its creator. It has already, under another name, been nominated for speedy deletion. The problem with it is that it's extremely contentious, but lacks any inline citations. I'd have no problem with the creator incubating it properly in draft space or their own space and putting proper references, but to dump this uncited into main-space is completely wrong. I don't know if it should be speedied, draftified, or discussed properly, so we're here. Elemimele ( talk) 21:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
As noted at the WikiProject Mathematics discussion page, this is original research. All of the discussions on the article's Talk page, going back to 2011, are about how it's not a real topic. A prod that was endorsed was then removed. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It could be argued that we already have terms for the concepts described here, like dynamical systems, group actions, modules, and vector spaces. However, there is still no other terminology available for an external monoid for which this terminology gives us a concise expression. Above all else, this is a reason this term should be of use in the mathematical community.XOR'easter ( talk) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Public image of Javier Milei. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
None of those "controversies" have any actual substance to them, or is even worth a standalone article. All of them are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X". All of them lasted for just some days and died as old news, without any actual consequences. In this day and age, all this stuff is just routine. Heads of state are always saying something, and someone is always reacting to those things said, even if just for a couple of hours.
Note as well that a page "controversial stuff involving a BLP" can easily get carried away into undesired directions.
And note that Trump and Putin, the most controversial world leaders of recent times, do not have any similar articles. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations. Daniel ( talk) 11:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
No sources cited. Seems to be more of a definition rather than entity. Google search provides only mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did find three mentions in this report (page 115) but still not notable enough to warrant an article Elshad ( talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Merge target article here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Original close was redirect with the history preserved to facilitate a merge, but Siroxo requested a merge close and tag and, as I don't see that being a huge difference I've done so. Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an *extremely* minor character that, while it has some development information, lacks any actual discussion as a fictional character to demonstrate notability. In writing articles for wikipedia it's important to demonstrate *why* a subject meets notability through significant coverage discussing the topic and illustrating people discussing a subject and why it's important outside of the scope of the main subject.
While this is an obscure character in the He-Man franchise, there's no indication of that importance. Furthermore it's not an isolated instance of an obscure character in the franchise being revisited as a toy much later. And as a fictional character, which should be the most important aspect of such an article...there's nothing.
The whole subject could be covered in a list entry with nothing lost Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
After seeing the consensus of the Afd for Jette's successor as United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, this position does not confer notability by itself. Independent sources are just not there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sohom (
talk)
16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
As explained there, this started off as undeclared paid editing by Biografix ( talk · contribs). Then Dszarek1234 ( talk · contribs) and 141.116.106.218 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP address from the Office of the Secretary of Defense) stepped in saying " As the Digital Media Analyst with ASA(ALT), I've been tasked by the Director of External Communications to scrub Dr. Jette's wiki page and use his official Department of Defense bio.".
Then after the first AFD discussion in 2018 a single-purpose account Acquisition1954 ( talk · contribs) and 141.116.250.235 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.107.56 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.54.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (more OSD IP addresses) got at the article in 2019 and filled it with all sorts of unverifiable stuff like what the innermost thoughts of the article subject, coincidentally who was born in 1954 and worked in acquisition, were at age 5.
We should get rid of this entire edit history.
There have been no contributions apart from the usual mechanical fiddlings for categories and whatnot by anyone else. There's no writing here that hasn't either had or outright declared a conflict of interest, and there has been at least one direct statement of intent to violate our fundamental NPOV and verifiability content policies (which latter the article now hugely does — at least the undeclared paid editor gave a pretense of adhering to the verifiability policy, but the "tasked" people and the people with the coincidental usernames and Pentagon IP addresses haven't even bothered at all to tell readers how they can check, say, what this person did as a football mascot in the early 1970s) by the people who wrote this content.
The result was redirect to Ranmoor with history preserved for a "slim merge" if needed. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This building doesn't appear to meet WP:N. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor, but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in. Boleyn ( talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
17:53, 5 December 2023 (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!
19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus on whether to redirect this, or to move it ito a proposed article about its successor. Suggest those discussions continue on the Talk page as I don't see a 4th relist establishing any clear path. Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability requirement. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a suggestion to divide an article, is this the target article you are suggesting? It's not clear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Listed competitions do not seem to establish notability – winning a Résisprint International does not seem to fulfill GNG or NSPORT as a "major international competition". InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Subject is a You Tuber for gaming and fails GNG where by subject does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talk about the subject in length and in depth for verification. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 23:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo ( talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
No refs on the page, I don't see enough independent RS to show notability. JMWt ( talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. BEFORE search turns up few mentions of the organization outside its own website and related business websites, and no reliable, third party sources. Geoff | Who, me? 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable business professional. Related companies are not notable. Seaweed ( talk) 15:41, 12 December 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. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. Let'srun ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. Clear consensus not to retain below (delete + merge), and probably a consensus to merge independent of delete !votes regardless of its preference as an ATD. The eventual redirect can be re-targetted to a different section within that article, or a different article, if so desired. Daniel ( talk) 11:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Not notable enough for standalone article, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT. Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado, which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to XBoard. Daniel ( talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't find any reliable sources. QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Commenting. I suggest merging or redirecting. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk) 14:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Numerically, we have no consensus, with about 40% of opinions in favor of deleting and 60% in favor of keeping the article.
In terms of strength of argument, many "keep" opinions invoke the WP:N guideline. These opinions must be discounted, because lack of notability of the topic is not the reason for which deletion is sought. Instead, the nomination argues that the contents of the article constitute original research by synthesis, i.e., "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" ( WP:SYNTH). In assessing the strength of arguments made here, we must examine whether this argument is made or rebutted convincingly. I find that neither is the case here.
To make a cogent SYNTH case, the "delete" side would have needed to address the specific sources cited in the article, and they would have needed to show how exactly these sources say one thing and the article text says another, and then they would have needed to show that these defects cannot be remedied except by deletion of the article ( WP:ATD). But the "delete" side has failed to make their case in this way. They merely allege, but do not demonstrate, inadmissible synthesis.
The "keep" side does not really do better: with the exception of Homerethegreat and a very few others, nobody really addresses the specific sources cited in the article, and how well they correspond to the article text (as would have been needed to rebut a WP:SYNTH deletion rationale). Instead, they make sweeping allegations mostly about how notable the topic is, which, as explained above, is beside the point here.
Consequently, there is no informed consensus to delete the article. A merger discussion or a more convincing renomination for deletion remain possible. Sandstein 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This looks like a re-creation of an article that was deleted two months ago ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis). The current article suffers from similar issues. The majority of the text in this article is WP:SYNTH, in that the source cited doesn't explicitly say that the Hamas-lead attack constituted genocide. In fact, many of the sources predate the attack, so they can't possibly be making that assertion. The few sources that do explicitly state f should be covered under Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide. VR talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
As a share of Israel’s population, it is equivalent to 12 September 11th attacks—a daily mortality rate exceeded only by full-scale wars, genocides or natural disasters.That is not an accusation Hamas committed genocide on 7 October. That is, apparently, the result of somebody googling "genocide Hamas October 7" and then not reading the results before posting them here. So for the people claiming the list of sources support the article, did you even read those sources? nableezy - 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable Singer. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Uchana Amit is a notable Singer worked with Badshah here is his instagram ID for reference @theuchana, you can also check YouTube for his songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parth1221 ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 December 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 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable organisation. Issues have been left unaddressed since 2015. Sources is about the criticism of the TV network, nothing on the website at all except for a dead Facebook link.
A CSD would be worthier for this non-notable organization SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Had been dePRODded previously; nominated due to issues with general notability and lack of significant coverage. Sources do not assert notability, not even a single review. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 11:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable WP:BIO. In a WP:BEFORE search all I can find is a ton of self-promotional interviews and obvious paid placement, including deprecated sources like WP:THESUN and WP:DAILYEXPRESS, but also the cited "contributor" article from WP:FORBESCON, and the Bangkok Post interview cited here which is at least clearly marked as PR. His charity work has only routine local newspaper coverage. The rest is passing mentions such as the Reuters and Huffpost articles cited about him joining charity fundraisers, articles written by him, and unreliable sources like news blogs. Speedy deleted G11 once at Samuel leach (created by same editor), and this one is borderline. Wikishovel ( talk) 11:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Fails to meet either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. The only claim which comes close to satisfying CREATIVE is sourced to a press release. SmartSE ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The University of Nottingham Ningbo China as an ATD. Daniel ( talk) 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References are all primary, and I couldn't establish notability with Google. — Panamitsu (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. Speedied G11 three times Draft:Skye Aurelia, but this one isn't eligible for speedy. WP:BEFORE search turned up passing mentions for modelling credits in WP:RS, but no significant secondary coverage - the best I can find is the Harper's Bazaar Serbia softball interview cited here, but an interview is a primary source. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable WP:CORP, no significant coverage online from reliable sources, only passing mentions found in business listings in a few languages. Original version was highly promotional, and there's a previous history of this from a blocked account a year ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LÀCRIMA DAIRY, and the accompanying article and draft history. Rather than bother with a SPI, it seemed better to clean it up and take it to AFD, but there's no real sign of notability here. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Randykitty ( talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic topic. We don't make lists of possible views; the broader topic is covered at Islamophobia. Fermiboson ( talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination(emphasis in original). I will change my !vote above. It does sorta raise the question of what Draftify is for, though. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This short-lived agency only existed for four years (2005-2009). No sources are cited other than the laws that governed it. This article fails WP:ORGSIG since there is no outside coverage of it. DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. So is this notable? I can't find sources talking about it. There is a touch more about the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which also has no page (not the same thing). There was a Welsh Centre for Rural Health and an institute for Health Informatics that were funded by Welsh Government but independent. There were a whole plethora of Welsh Health organisations over the years, all of which would be scraping the barrel to find their way beyond permastub status as pages. What is missing, I think, is some kind of page looking at the healthcare landscape in Wales. We have NHS Wales but that is largely the current situation. The Wales Centre for Health could be mentioned in an as yet unwritten page looking at the historical situation, but there is not notability for a page in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Small mall that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Only cites two sources, one of which is its website. Very little coverage available online DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable Linux distribution with almost no reliable sources available DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. This is not even a varsity team. It's a "club" team that played three games against " junior varsity" squads from three small colleges, losing two of those games. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced for over a decade, found no WP:SIGCOV online. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, but deprodded with the rationale: "8 seasons on national network may meet WP:NTV" ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors plus an assessment of recently identified sources in this discussion (if they are accessible online).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity or third-party coverage. Article has remained in its current state since 2006 creation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:25, 28 November 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)
03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get more opinions about recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Subject is not notable. I cannot find mention of it in either of the sources, nor the external links. A search for more sources turns up no mentions in any reliable sources. Admittedly the topic is difficult to search for since it is unlikely to be called the "Pentaapeirogonal tiling". It's more likely to be referred to by symbol or diagram, which are difficult to search for. It is however unlikely that this receives any significant note, because it doesn't appear to have any unique properties among the uniform tilings of the hyperbolic plane. All the properties in the article are pretty trivially derived from its Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.
It would be better served as a single entry in a list of uniform tilings if any of these properties could even be sourced. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
*Merge with
Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane. Seems this is related with uniform tilings so probably can be moved there.
killer
bee
05:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft"
, especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
As for "my subjective opinion"
, when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
So, @ Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
"an authoritative source"as you put it?
"I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After
User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Fail WP:GNG. No more sources found in online which can pass GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️ Let's Talk ! 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject seemingly played one game for the Jamaica women's national football team a few years ago. However, she does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion. I found this article from the Jamaica Observer, which is a good start, but everything else that came up in my searches are passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Venezuelan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which are mostly quotes from the subject. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable writer. Self-promo article, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper ( talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 06:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced for 8 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Reviewed during NPP. From a wp:notability standpoint, there are no references which cover the topic as such. Regarding being a list article, there is really nothing that says what it actually is. What is an "Indonesian school"? Without that, IMO, besides failing wp:notability it really has no specific defined content or sourcing that included schools meet that non-existent criteria. North8000 ( talk) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Colonial Clash. Daniel ( talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)