The result was redirect to United Democratic Movement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails NPOL and NBIO. Currently, the only source cited contains one sentence about the article subject: "Yongama Zigebe filled the secretary general position left vacant by Msomi." I could not find any other sources that provide significant coverage of the article subject. The article subject does not meet any of the secondary criteria in NPOL because he is not an elected government official. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this as No Consensus. This was primarily a dispute over whether this article should be Kept or Merged, I see some editors advocating for Deletion but I did not find their arguments to be very strong and some of the objections can be addressed by careful editing, some of which occurred during the time this discussion was open. So, the primary issue is whether or not some or all of this content should be Merged with another article(s). That discussion, and what the target article(s) should be, can proceed outside of the AFD arena on the article talk page. That is the proper place for an in depth Merge discussion that isn't time-sensitive like AFDs are. You might even consider copying some of the comments made here to start off that discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This fails the general notability guideline, and arguably our guidelines on writing about fiction, since the Nephites almost certainly did not exist yet this article treats the subject with complete credulity; that's probably because almost every single source is clearly not independent, being affiliated with or published by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
a fictional onethat is
not like Jewish, Hindu, or Christian scripturein the first place? P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
a fictional one, not the book. The difference between the Book of Mormon and those scriptures is that those scriptures contain possibly historical elements, the Book of Mormon does not. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions.Wikipedia itself does not put in its own voice claims that aren't NPOV, but as the Oxford University Press-published book Understanding the Book of Mormon (pp. 23–26) explains, speculation about a setting's mechanics has a long history in the literary analysis of fiction, and that can be as true for the Book of Mormon, making Nephite existence irrelevant to the analysis in the articles by Takagi and Couch. And what is Takagi's or Couch's financial or legal relationship to, specifically, the Book of Mormon monetary system? If their sources were being cited for something about the history of BYU, then I could understand non-independence. But BYU's participation in Mormonism doesn't make the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies or BYU Studies non-independent of content in the Book of Mormon any more than, to give an example, Baylor University's participation in the Baptist tradition would make it non-independent of content in the Bible. Baylor University Press's Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr is independent of the biblical figure Peter, though Baylor University Press is not independent of Baylor University. In a similar way, I hold that "Gold, Silver, and Grain" is independent of the Book of Mormon monetary system.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as I see no consensus yet. I'm a little doubtful that, with opinions circling around the LDS church and not the notabiity of the article subject established by reliable sources, a consensus can be arrived at. But still it is worth it to give this discussion a little more time. I'm aware that it's frowned upon to use the term "LDS church" but I don't have the time right now to track down the new established nomenclature.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
links to the official Church style guide(there would be no need to link to it more than once). I shared only one link to the Latter-day Saints' own style guide, to source its disinclination for "LDS Church". The other links were to a book published in 1953 with the phrase "L. D. S. Church" in the title (as a primary source to demonstrate the longterm use of "LDS Church"), to a CNN news article about the denomination's 2018 announcement requesting that others refrain from the word "Mormon" (as a secondary source about that request, since that more recent happening was potentially what Liz referred to as
newnomenclature), and to MOS:LDS (twice; once for the current page, once for a version from 2011). In any case, the Manual of Style's current instruction for shortened reference is "LDS Church", and that has been a consensus for some time. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
complaining about [a user] in multiple places and it is beginning to seem personal. This pattern of behavior is becoming alarming, and I invite you to reconsider it and let the AfD vote proceed on its own. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 01:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject is not notable. As with the now deleted pentaapeirogonal tiling, this tiling is not mentioned of this tiling in the cited sources. Searching for the name yields next to nothing, although it may go by another name in reliable sources. As it stands, the article appears to be entirely original research. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hayastan Jan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Article was originally created from copyvios in 2017 and has remained stubbish since. Relies on one source with no clear notability for subject and article as-is fails WP:GNG. There's also no other language-wiki pages for this show. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) Dan the Animator 18:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Stubbish article that's existed for over a decade with no other language wiki versions and has little chance of expansion. The article's content currently consists of duplicated content from its linked articles and doesn't have any original content from what I can tell. I'm not familiar with "Military history" articles but to me, I can't see the utility of this article. All of its current content is already covered in the main Republic of Artsakh article I think as well as its subarticles. Much of the history of Artsakh deals with "military history" as well so I'm not exactly sure what differentiates this from the main History of Artsakh article. Would like to others' thoughts on this though. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. This means that substantial work is necessary for this article to survive in main space so this should not be construed as permission to move it back in the near future or we will be back for AFD 2 for this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Apart from the News18 reference, none of the sources provided appear to be reliable. A check before nomination didn't turn up anything else either. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Has twice been to AfD as N/C in 2016 and 2017, but given the significant changes in notability since then, it's time to revisit it. I am unable to find anywhere near the depth of sourcing required for N:ORG which appears to be the best barometer for this database. Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Zero independent reliable sources covering this software. Not notable. Changed my opinion after the major work done by
StreetcarEnjoyer (thank you!), now I don't think it should be deleted. I believe I have the right to withdraw the nomination since both people here are leaning towards keeping.
Deltaspace42 (
talk •
contribs)
14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Young footballer made a brief debut in a cup game but is yet to attract any significant coverage. He was covered in a local paper and on his club website but it's not enough. Currently TOOSOON so should likely be draftified or deleted. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 20:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of curlers#France. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Not meeting WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NCURL.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
20:11, 29 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) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines
The article has only one valid source in terms of WP:SIGCOV (a book, the other source is primary evidence at a US senate hearing). I can find no hits on google that aren't wiki-mirrors, nothing on google scholar. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Léger (company). Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced article, subject is not notable. Broc ( talk) 17:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to F3 Derby. While there's a case made for it being an unlikely search, a redirect would be needed for attribution purposes Star Mississippi 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. No aftermath out of the ordinary. More than enough to mention it on a record list, as well as in the F3 Derby. Geschichte ( talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. Two other albums can be considered together with this one: All in the Silence and Kentoverse Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. Do not open a new AFD the day after the previous AFD closed. This is very questionable behavior from the nominator. When I said that a return trip to AFD was possible, I meant in a few weeks or months, not in a few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for this topic, let alone for the more stringent WP:CORPDEPTH.
The single reference present in the article does not contain "Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative".
Previous discussion was infested by an alt account who went off on a tangent on how it is not fair for him to get new user mentoring. This is why the close suggested no prejudice towards renominating at AfD. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 14:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see North Dakota's Electric Distribution Cooperatives
The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Most of the reception were listicles and rankings. Simon quest's were the only notable, not him (He is not a complex character or something). The only good sources were this [5] and perhaps this? [6] GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 14:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. While there's some discussion about a merge to the primary character page being proper, there is no consensus to delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG. This character has receive little to zero commentary. The only good sources were the criticism about its gameplay? but those doesn't really help; others were trivia. This source is the only good one [7]. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The only good sources were the criticism? but those doesn't really helpargument, there are articles on the English Wikipedia that gained notability based on controversies or criticism involving either gameplay or characterization such as Tingle, Ashley Graham (GA), and The Outsider. Now you could make the argument that perhaps there should be a dedicated paragraph and a rewrite of the Zhongli Incident or that his reception section could use some work in terms of the overall writing and structure but that doesn't really warrant outright deletion/merging as per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Regardless, I'll look into finding further sources if other editors don't seem to find the current sourcing satisfactory enough. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one. I'm getting an impression that apparently, only English sources are of any apparent significance when last time I checked, foreign-language secondary sources count as being equally reliable as their English counterparts per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GLOBAL. By the way, I could also name problems with the sourcing in the articles I've cited as for example, references 26, 27, and 30 of The Outsider article at best only have passing mentions which is insignificant coverage, even if there are decent sources in the other two paragraphs as well as the development section. Regardless, I've since added two more paragraphs going over analysis of his characterization referenced by scholarly sources as well as fully replaced every unreliable source prior to nomination. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Supergrey1 ( talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This article reads like a FANDOM pageconsidering most of the article is paraphrased from secondary sources? This isn't even mentioning the contents within the article itself scholarly sources are being used within the contents since there are currently around four which as Supergrey pointed out, qualifies for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I've already highlighted two independent references, but I've since translated even further content that has been added from the Chinese Wikipedia as well as replacing any unreliable sources remaining within the article. At this point, there isn't really any good reason to delete this article as secondary coverage has just been further reinforced. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 11:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a self-published book that does not appear to have been reviewed by any known outlets. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Valid disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted, no citatons provided iVickyChoudhary ( talk) 11:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 11:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD in 2007. Article completely lacks any non-passing mention source. Googling reveals almost all hits are derived from her notable husband, Brian Tee. I am unable to find any independent coverage. Fermiboson ( talk) 11:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 11:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails to meet NPOL or GNG. State presidents/candidates of political parties must meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria for a standalone article. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 11:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. More than enough to mention it on a record list. Geschichte ( talk) 10:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. The article is now located at Draft:Lucas Sant. North America 1000 11:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Player has made one appearance in a cup game but does not yet have significant coverage, as far as I can see. It is a case of TOOSOON and the article should probably be draftified. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 10:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 10:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG being the purchase manager for Swan at the Globe is not remotely notable? Theroadislong ( talk) 09:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
prominent French sommelier- it's borderline WP:G11. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The best arguments below relative to our policies and guidelines are those for delete, and there is sufficient number of them to merit a consensus. Daniel ( talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable service offered by a non-notable company. Sources are basically primary sources. Doesn't satisfy our WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba ( talk) 09:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, while I can't speak for other countries which MaNaDr operates in, it is certainly notable and widely used in Singapore. I have just found more third-party sources referencing MaNaDr and I will edit them into the page shortly. -- Surrealityy ( talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Rejected at AFC multiple times, but repeatedly moved to main space, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mississippi College Collegians football, 1907–1909. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
No notability found for this one game season to meet the WP:NSEASONS. PROD was declined. Let'srun ( talk) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the consensus to remove the article is clear, the views are split between whether to delete or merge. That is worthy of further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:GNG. I tried clicking "The official homepage" link on the bottom of the article, but the site doesn't mention any "Arabesque". Was previously nominated for AfD but speedy kept because nominator gave the wrong reason. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:29, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources indicating any notability of this version control system. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 08:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP on Indian men's footballer which fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2012, 2014, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 07:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 10:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not pass the criteria of notability as a musician. Has not received any award as an artist by national or state government. No references and thumbnail articles Md Joni Hossain ( talk) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so we can hear from more editors about this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:00, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Doubt on subject's notability. Looks like a resume. References are mostly his own publications. Nothing found to satisfy WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 05:31, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Previously moved to draft and recreated within 20 minutes. Draft:Abu Iman. Does not pass GNG. WP:Before has some hits for Abu Iman but not sure if they are the same person as the subject. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 05:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct European browser game with a page that largely hasn't changed in over a decade. The sourcelist is comprised of the browser game's site and other host sites with no reliable secondary sources or evidence of actual commentary on the game. Lack of publisher information and the potential for WP:NONENG sources to be out there makes it difficult to find anything on this title for a WP:BEFORE. Thanks in advance for your help. VRXCES ( talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 10:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:GNG — does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article appears to comprise large amounts of original research, most of which is of interest only to a niche audience rather than a general readership. The few existing citations comprise unreliable sources such as YouTube videos, GitHub, Google documents and random PDFs.
Popcornfud ( talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. Only sources listed are the company's website. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 08:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although participants here argue to Keep this article, we need some independent, secondary sources supplying SIGCOV to verify at least some information in this article. That's the standard for all article subjects, even the most worthy organizations. Otherwise, this Wikipedia article is just an extension of the company's website.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Three relists in I'm not seeing a consensus here. The arguments to delete are stronger; sources counting WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV have not been explicitly listed. However, I don't believe the imbalance is strong enough for a delete verdict; there are sources in the article that aren't so obviously disqualified that I can discount them as a closer, and no comprehensive source analysis was provided of these either. No prejudice to speedy renomination, but I suggest that those advocating to keep make an effort to find more sources that may render this unnecessary. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 08:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
PR for non notable local business. Coverage from local paper and business journal falls short of Audience. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:23, 21 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,
Daniel (
talk)
04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This AfD might be the same issue as I did with Michal Vacek back in late November. Google search results mix him with the late politician of the same name, but nothing much to say about this bobsleigh athlete. Corresponding articles in other languages are mostly poorly-sourced and a stub (I checked and translated them), especially Czech Wikipedia, which would help copy over to the English article otherwise. Even as a legit adult, we probably have to let him figure out what he wants to do with his life, then create a full biography if he receives significant coverage in reliable sources. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 09:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Not yet meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. Macbeejack ☎ 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review Wasilatlovekesy's proposal of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources are mostly press releases, primary sources, or passing mentions. There's no significant independent and sustained coverage, making this probably not notable for a standalone article, although mentions to it in articles like Keith J. Krach would be due. MarioGom ( talk) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:34, 21 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,
Daniel (
talk)
03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont. clpo13( talk) 19:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's a repeat of information at George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont and consists solely of genealogical information. Fails WP:GNG. DrKay ( talk) 19:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, should not be deleted. the Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen is a historical person and is of interest for a online bibliotheca like Wikipedia. -- 92.76.102.53 ( talk) 21:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, per 92.76.102.53 - I shall also add that there are short sections ("Early life" and "Later life") pertaining to her life. Scribbie ( talk) 22:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: I have added extra information prior to her early life and later life so it isn’t a copy of George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Most of it is about her and her family. Therefore doesn’t fit wp:NOTGENEALOGY. My other account reason : Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen's article should definitely stay on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Firstly, she holds historical significance as a prominent figure in the 18th century, with her marriage and connections to other ruling houses. Additionally, her article is mostly cited, providing reliable sources for readers to explore further. Preserving her legacy ensures that future generations can learn about her accomplishments and the broader historical context. YorkDr ( talk) 21:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Draftify: while it's no longer a clear-cut case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, the early life content is still very brief and uncited. With more citations and a cleaned-up or removed "marriage and issue" section it might pass notability Dan • ✉ 01:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: beyond the case of
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. She was a historical princess, unlike today's seemingly insignificant or powerless constitutional monarchy. If you have a penchant for article deletion, please AfD them. Thanks.
85.229.188.50 (
talk) 13:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked
sockpuppet of
2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A)
DrKay (
talk)
20:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looking for policy-oriented contributions which have been missing on the 'keep' side so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. clpo13( talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Pfomma ( talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to garner more opinions here. I might have suggested a PROD prior to trying AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you had looked at the page history, which is the least any AFD discussion participant should do, you would have seen that the article was tagged CSD G7 at least twice, both times declined. The reasons are in the edit summaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Football in France. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. List serves little purpose, is completely unsourced, and poorly upkept. Owners are already listed on each club article, which is sufficient. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Non notable University Society. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus that this article should be Kept although it's sourcing could be improved (as is the case with many articles). Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
He's had executive roles at a number of crypto-related companies and exchanges but only Shapeshift looks notable, and it doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG either. Probably either delete or redirect to Shapeshift. BuySomeApples ( talk) 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I made this article in January of 2021 when I knew less about editing Wikipedia. The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars. It was tagged for notability in September this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018). Daniel ( talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This game zero critic reviews on Metacritic, and doesn't have enough articles substantially covering it to substitute the lack of critic reviews with WP:THREE or WP:SUSTAINED in any way. I simply do not think this game is notable enough on its own, and is likely better off merged into the series' article. Negative MP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP on Indian men's footballer which fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2010, 2011, 2016, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Local politician that fails WP:NPOL. Also the source that was cited in the article is an incomplete external wiki entry. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to United Democratic Movement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails NPOL and NBIO. Currently, the only source cited contains one sentence about the article subject: "Yongama Zigebe filled the secretary general position left vacant by Msomi." I could not find any other sources that provide significant coverage of the article subject. The article subject does not meet any of the secondary criteria in NPOL because he is not an elected government official. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this as No Consensus. This was primarily a dispute over whether this article should be Kept or Merged, I see some editors advocating for Deletion but I did not find their arguments to be very strong and some of the objections can be addressed by careful editing, some of which occurred during the time this discussion was open. So, the primary issue is whether or not some or all of this content should be Merged with another article(s). That discussion, and what the target article(s) should be, can proceed outside of the AFD arena on the article talk page. That is the proper place for an in depth Merge discussion that isn't time-sensitive like AFDs are. You might even consider copying some of the comments made here to start off that discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This fails the general notability guideline, and arguably our guidelines on writing about fiction, since the Nephites almost certainly did not exist yet this article treats the subject with complete credulity; that's probably because almost every single source is clearly not independent, being affiliated with or published by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
a fictional onethat is
not like Jewish, Hindu, or Christian scripturein the first place? P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
a fictional one, not the book. The difference between the Book of Mormon and those scriptures is that those scriptures contain possibly historical elements, the Book of Mormon does not. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions.Wikipedia itself does not put in its own voice claims that aren't NPOV, but as the Oxford University Press-published book Understanding the Book of Mormon (pp. 23–26) explains, speculation about a setting's mechanics has a long history in the literary analysis of fiction, and that can be as true for the Book of Mormon, making Nephite existence irrelevant to the analysis in the articles by Takagi and Couch. And what is Takagi's or Couch's financial or legal relationship to, specifically, the Book of Mormon monetary system? If their sources were being cited for something about the history of BYU, then I could understand non-independence. But BYU's participation in Mormonism doesn't make the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies or BYU Studies non-independent of content in the Book of Mormon any more than, to give an example, Baylor University's participation in the Baptist tradition would make it non-independent of content in the Bible. Baylor University Press's Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr is independent of the biblical figure Peter, though Baylor University Press is not independent of Baylor University. In a similar way, I hold that "Gold, Silver, and Grain" is independent of the Book of Mormon monetary system.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as I see no consensus yet. I'm a little doubtful that, with opinions circling around the LDS church and not the notabiity of the article subject established by reliable sources, a consensus can be arrived at. But still it is worth it to give this discussion a little more time. I'm aware that it's frowned upon to use the term "LDS church" but I don't have the time right now to track down the new established nomenclature.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
links to the official Church style guide(there would be no need to link to it more than once). I shared only one link to the Latter-day Saints' own style guide, to source its disinclination for "LDS Church". The other links were to a book published in 1953 with the phrase "L. D. S. Church" in the title (as a primary source to demonstrate the longterm use of "LDS Church"), to a CNN news article about the denomination's 2018 announcement requesting that others refrain from the word "Mormon" (as a secondary source about that request, since that more recent happening was potentially what Liz referred to as
newnomenclature), and to MOS:LDS (twice; once for the current page, once for a version from 2011). In any case, the Manual of Style's current instruction for shortened reference is "LDS Church", and that has been a consensus for some time. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
complaining about [a user] in multiple places and it is beginning to seem personal. This pattern of behavior is becoming alarming, and I invite you to reconsider it and let the AfD vote proceed on its own. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 01:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject is not notable. As with the now deleted pentaapeirogonal tiling, this tiling is not mentioned of this tiling in the cited sources. Searching for the name yields next to nothing, although it may go by another name in reliable sources. As it stands, the article appears to be entirely original research. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hayastan Jan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Article was originally created from copyvios in 2017 and has remained stubbish since. Relies on one source with no clear notability for subject and article as-is fails WP:GNG. There's also no other language-wiki pages for this show. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) Dan the Animator 18:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Stubbish article that's existed for over a decade with no other language wiki versions and has little chance of expansion. The article's content currently consists of duplicated content from its linked articles and doesn't have any original content from what I can tell. I'm not familiar with "Military history" articles but to me, I can't see the utility of this article. All of its current content is already covered in the main Republic of Artsakh article I think as well as its subarticles. Much of the history of Artsakh deals with "military history" as well so I'm not exactly sure what differentiates this from the main History of Artsakh article. Would like to others' thoughts on this though. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. This means that substantial work is necessary for this article to survive in main space so this should not be construed as permission to move it back in the near future or we will be back for AFD 2 for this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Apart from the News18 reference, none of the sources provided appear to be reliable. A check before nomination didn't turn up anything else either. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Has twice been to AfD as N/C in 2016 and 2017, but given the significant changes in notability since then, it's time to revisit it. I am unable to find anywhere near the depth of sourcing required for N:ORG which appears to be the best barometer for this database. Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Zero independent reliable sources covering this software. Not notable. Changed my opinion after the major work done by
StreetcarEnjoyer (thank you!), now I don't think it should be deleted. I believe I have the right to withdraw the nomination since both people here are leaning towards keeping.
Deltaspace42 (
talk •
contribs)
14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
22:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Young footballer made a brief debut in a cup game but is yet to attract any significant coverage. He was covered in a local paper and on his club website but it's not enough. Currently TOOSOON so should likely be draftified or deleted. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 20:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of curlers#France. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Not meeting WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NCURL.-- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk)
20:11, 29 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) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines
The article has only one valid source in terms of WP:SIGCOV (a book, the other source is primary evidence at a US senate hearing). I can find no hits on google that aren't wiki-mirrors, nothing on google scholar. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Léger (company). Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced article, subject is not notable. Broc ( talk) 17:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to F3 Derby. While there's a case made for it being an unlikely search, a redirect would be needed for attribution purposes Star Mississippi 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. No aftermath out of the ordinary. More than enough to mention it on a record list, as well as in the F3 Derby. Geschichte ( talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. Two other albums can be considered together with this one: All in the Silence and Kentoverse Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. Do not open a new AFD the day after the previous AFD closed. This is very questionable behavior from the nominator. When I said that a return trip to AFD was possible, I meant in a few weeks or months, not in a few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for this topic, let alone for the more stringent WP:CORPDEPTH.
The single reference present in the article does not contain "Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative".
Previous discussion was infested by an alt account who went off on a tangent on how it is not fair for him to get new user mentoring. This is why the close suggested no prejudice towards renominating at AfD. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 14:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see North Dakota's Electric Distribution Cooperatives
The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Most of the reception were listicles and rankings. Simon quest's were the only notable, not him (He is not a complex character or something). The only good sources were this [5] and perhaps this? [6] GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 14:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. While there's some discussion about a merge to the primary character page being proper, there is no consensus to delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails GNG. This character has receive little to zero commentary. The only good sources were the criticism about its gameplay? but those doesn't really help; others were trivia. This source is the only good one [7]. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The only good sources were the criticism? but those doesn't really helpargument, there are articles on the English Wikipedia that gained notability based on controversies or criticism involving either gameplay or characterization such as Tingle, Ashley Graham (GA), and The Outsider. Now you could make the argument that perhaps there should be a dedicated paragraph and a rewrite of the Zhongli Incident or that his reception section could use some work in terms of the overall writing and structure but that doesn't really warrant outright deletion/merging as per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Regardless, I'll look into finding further sources if other editors don't seem to find the current sourcing satisfactory enough. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one. I'm getting an impression that apparently, only English sources are of any apparent significance when last time I checked, foreign-language secondary sources count as being equally reliable as their English counterparts per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GLOBAL. By the way, I could also name problems with the sourcing in the articles I've cited as for example, references 26, 27, and 30 of The Outsider article at best only have passing mentions which is insignificant coverage, even if there are decent sources in the other two paragraphs as well as the development section. Regardless, I've since added two more paragraphs going over analysis of his characterization referenced by scholarly sources as well as fully replaced every unreliable source prior to nomination. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Supergrey1 ( talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This article reads like a FANDOM pageconsidering most of the article is paraphrased from secondary sources? This isn't even mentioning the contents within the article itself scholarly sources are being used within the contents since there are currently around four which as Supergrey pointed out, qualifies for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I've already highlighted two independent references, but I've since translated even further content that has been added from the Chinese Wikipedia as well as replacing any unreliable sources remaining within the article. At this point, there isn't really any good reason to delete this article as secondary coverage has just been further reinforced. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 11:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a self-published book that does not appear to have been reviewed by any known outlets. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Valid disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Previously deleted, no citatons provided iVickyChoudhary ( talk) 11:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 11:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Last AfD in 2007. Article completely lacks any non-passing mention source. Googling reveals almost all hits are derived from her notable husband, Brian Tee. I am unable to find any independent coverage. Fermiboson ( talk) 11:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 11:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails to meet NPOL or GNG. State presidents/candidates of political parties must meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria for a standalone article. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 11:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. More than enough to mention it on a record list. Geschichte ( talk) 10:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. The article is now located at Draft:Lucas Sant. North America 1000 11:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Player has made one appearance in a cup game but does not yet have significant coverage, as far as I can see. It is a case of TOOSOON and the article should probably be draftified. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 10:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 10:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG being the purchase manager for Swan at the Globe is not remotely notable? Theroadislong ( talk) 09:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
prominent French sommelier- it's borderline WP:G11. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The best arguments below relative to our policies and guidelines are those for delete, and there is sufficient number of them to merit a consensus. Daniel ( talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable service offered by a non-notable company. Sources are basically primary sources. Doesn't satisfy our WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba ( talk) 09:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, while I can't speak for other countries which MaNaDr operates in, it is certainly notable and widely used in Singapore. I have just found more third-party sources referencing MaNaDr and I will edit them into the page shortly. -- Surrealityy ( talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Rejected at AFC multiple times, but repeatedly moved to main space, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mississippi College Collegians football, 1907–1909. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
No notability found for this one game season to meet the WP:NSEASONS. PROD was declined. Let'srun ( talk) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the consensus to remove the article is clear, the views are split between whether to delete or merge. That is worthy of further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no!
08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:GNG. I tried clicking "The official homepage" link on the bottom of the article, but the site doesn't mention any "Arabesque". Was previously nominated for AfD but speedy kept because nominator gave the wrong reason. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:29, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
No independent sources indicating any notability of this version control system. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 08:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP on Indian men's footballer which fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2012, 2014, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 07:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 10:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not pass the criteria of notability as a musician. Has not received any award as an artist by national or state government. No references and thumbnail articles Md Joni Hossain ( talk) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so we can hear from more editors about this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:00, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Doubt on subject's notability. Looks like a resume. References are mostly his own publications. Nothing found to satisfy WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 05:31, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Previously moved to draft and recreated within 20 minutes. Draft:Abu Iman. Does not pass GNG. WP:Before has some hits for Abu Iman but not sure if they are the same person as the subject. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 05:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable defunct European browser game with a page that largely hasn't changed in over a decade. The sourcelist is comprised of the browser game's site and other host sites with no reliable secondary sources or evidence of actual commentary on the game. Lack of publisher information and the potential for WP:NONENG sources to be out there makes it difficult to find anything on this title for a WP:BEFORE. Thanks in advance for your help. VRXCES ( talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 10:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:GNG — does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article appears to comprise large amounts of original research, most of which is of interest only to a niche audience rather than a general readership. The few existing citations comprise unreliable sources such as YouTube videos, GitHub, Google documents and random PDFs.
Popcornfud ( talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. Only sources listed are the company's website. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 08:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although participants here argue to Keep this article, we need some independent, secondary sources supplying SIGCOV to verify at least some information in this article. That's the standard for all article subjects, even the most worthy organizations. Otherwise, this Wikipedia article is just an extension of the company's website.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Three relists in I'm not seeing a consensus here. The arguments to delete are stronger; sources counting WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV have not been explicitly listed. However, I don't believe the imbalance is strong enough for a delete verdict; there are sources in the article that aren't so obviously disqualified that I can discount them as a closer, and no comprehensive source analysis was provided of these either. No prejudice to speedy renomination, but I suggest that those advocating to keep make an effort to find more sources that may render this unnecessary. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 08:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
PR for non notable local business. Coverage from local paper and business journal falls short of Audience. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:23, 21 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,
Daniel (
talk)
04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This AfD might be the same issue as I did with Michal Vacek back in late November. Google search results mix him with the late politician of the same name, but nothing much to say about this bobsleigh athlete. Corresponding articles in other languages are mostly poorly-sourced and a stub (I checked and translated them), especially Czech Wikipedia, which would help copy over to the English article otherwise. Even as a legit adult, we probably have to let him figure out what he wants to do with his life, then create a full biography if he receives significant coverage in reliable sources. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 09:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Not yet meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. Macbeejack ☎ 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi
15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review Wasilatlovekesy's proposal of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources are mostly press releases, primary sources, or passing mentions. There's no significant independent and sustained coverage, making this probably not notable for a standalone article, although mentions to it in articles like Keith J. Krach would be due. MarioGom ( talk) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:34, 21 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,
Daniel (
talk)
03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont. clpo13( talk) 19:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's a repeat of information at George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont and consists solely of genealogical information. Fails WP:GNG. DrKay ( talk) 19:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, should not be deleted. the Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen is a historical person and is of interest for a online bibliotheca like Wikipedia. -- 92.76.102.53 ( talk) 21:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, per 92.76.102.53 - I shall also add that there are short sections ("Early life" and "Later life") pertaining to her life. Scribbie ( talk) 22:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: I have added extra information prior to her early life and later life so it isn’t a copy of George I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Most of it is about her and her family. Therefore doesn’t fit wp:NOTGENEALOGY. My other account reason : Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen's article should definitely stay on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Firstly, she holds historical significance as a prominent figure in the 18th century, with her marriage and connections to other ruling houses. Additionally, her article is mostly cited, providing reliable sources for readers to explore further. Preserving her legacy ensures that future generations can learn about her accomplishments and the broader historical context. YorkDr ( talk) 21:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Draftify: while it's no longer a clear-cut case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, the early life content is still very brief and uncited. With more citations and a cleaned-up or removed "marriage and issue" section it might pass notability Dan • ✉ 01:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: beyond the case of
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. She was a historical princess, unlike today's seemingly insignificant or powerless constitutional monarchy. If you have a penchant for article deletion, please AfD them. Thanks.
85.229.188.50 (
talk) 13:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked
sockpuppet of
2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A)
DrKay (
talk)
20:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looking for policy-oriented contributions which have been missing on the 'keep' side so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. clpo13( talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Pfomma ( talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to garner more opinions here. I might have suggested a PROD prior to trying AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you had looked at the page history, which is the least any AFD discussion participant should do, you would have seen that the article was tagged CSD G7 at least twice, both times declined. The reasons are in the edit summaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Football in France. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. List serves little purpose, is completely unsourced, and poorly upkept. Owners are already listed on each club article, which is sufficient. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. clpo13( talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Non notable University Society. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I see a consensus that this article should be Kept although it's sourcing could be improved (as is the case with many articles). Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
He's had executive roles at a number of crypto-related companies and exchanges but only Shapeshift looks notable, and it doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG either. Probably either delete or redirect to Shapeshift. BuySomeApples ( talk) 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I made this article in January of 2021 when I knew less about editing Wikipedia. The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars. It was tagged for notability in September this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018). Daniel ( talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This game zero critic reviews on Metacritic, and doesn't have enough articles substantially covering it to substitute the lack of critic reviews with WP:THREE or WP:SUSTAINED in any way. I simply do not think this game is notable enough on its own, and is likely better off merged into the series' article. Negative MP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Poorly sourced BLP on Indian men's footballer which fails WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2010, 2011, 2016, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Local politician that fails WP:NPOL. Also the source that was cited in the article is an incomplete external wiki entry. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)