The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Per IP request: I am nominating this article for deletion because a WP:BEFORE search found exactly one source - [1], not enough to meet GNG and therefore non-notable. 166.198.251.71 ( talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) submitted on behalf of stated IP by UtherSRG (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep. That lone "Delete" !vote by an editor in good standing will likely ultimately lose to the consensus, but once there, we cannot sweep it under the rug just because the nominator was disqualified. At this point, the AfD must be allowed to run its course. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an advert more than an article; it is insufficiently supported by references, most of which do not resolve to news stories. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find reliable sources to prove its notability. It has been in CAT:UNREF for more than 16 years. Boleyn ( talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:00, 7 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! 22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Spam article relying entirely on citations to the university's own website. No third party sources, no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 22:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
MLB player with a 10-day career, other than databases there does not seem to be any coverage Valereee ( talk) 21:13, 7 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. RL0919 ( talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite the award, I can't find any coverage beyond the two sources I added to the article, which by themselves don't seem enough to establish notability, especially because they are concentrated specifically around the awarding. Can't find enough to justify a stand-alone article here. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 18:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 23:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Draftify Delete Withdrawn, speedy keep Draftify or delete, see below. Unsourced BLP from mainspace. Mass move of unreferenced articles to mainspace.
microbiologyMarcus (
petri dish·
growths)
20:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages, as specified above:
microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 20:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Notes
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Sourced solely to directories and online family history self-published websites. DrKay ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Howdy!
I'm honestly making this submission with something of a heavy heart, as I've prolly put in a few collective days of work into tryin' to source and improve this article. It survived two attempts at speedy deletion and a proposed deletion on the basis of the subject's promisin' international career. However, after searching high and low, from JSTOR to Naxos to, well, Google, I've dug up hardly anything at all about Mr. le Roux, let alone notable coverage. While he's no doubt got an enviable career, it doesn't seem to me that this performer meets the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. But of course, I'm more than happy to be corrected!
Thanks! ~Judy (call it in!) 18:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see any notable productions that he has performed in, except for possibly this: "In 2013, he sang in the world premiere of the Philip Glass opera The Lost, at the opening of the Linz opera house." Glass is an important composer, and singing a role in the premiere of one of his operas (though a very obscure one) is something, but it was not a long run, and the rest of his career seems to be in non-notable productions. So far, I'd say Delete, unless someone finds something major. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm not usually a fan of cutting AfD discussions short but there has been unusually heavy participation and consensus is overwhelming. No need to keep this open just to rack up the pile on !votes. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
An article about two words sometimes used together. Even ignoring the transparent editorialising in the article, Wikipedia is not a platform for documenting the conjunction of words. We already have articles (probably too many) on movements, organisations individuals etc that may have used the phrase, where the context is explained, and the intent clarified. This article does the opposite - it purports to demonstrate that the phrase has some sort of independent notability, while citing sources (poor ones) that instead amply illustrate that two words (neither of which is well-defined) can be used to describe almost anything vaguely related to Palestine, past, present, and future. This is a thoroughly misguided exercise in polemic, not even approximating to anything that belongs in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi - A group of us wrote an article that is now up for deletion and we are asking that seasoned users who know the importance of Wikipedia will vote to keep a neutral, well-researched article that gives context to global political events as well as is likely to prevent people from killing one another as they will see they are asking for the same thing.
Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
/info/en/?search=Free_Palestine_(phrase)".
"Free Palestine" used to mean something else before 1948. Yes, we get it. If redirecting, then to what target? Palestinian nationalism only covers the post-1967 sense of the phrase. Turning the page into a DAB seems silly, but is the only alternative to deletion I can think of. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Unfortunately, that requires deleting the article, because it is flamebait, but nothing more. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
The result was redirect to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Daniel ( talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable the Walking Dead character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:06, 7 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) 18:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Lots of mentions and reprinted press releases, but no SIGCOV in reliable sources. People wishing to find sources should also look under their current name, Prospanica. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I was really hoping The Star Beast would help salvage this article, but Beep just doesn't seem to meet notability thresholds, even now. All the articles I can find on him are either plot summaries and recaps, information on the casting of Miriam Margolyes, or the minor controversy caused by the pronouns scene. The latter can be easily covered by The Star Beast's main article, and if any additional commentary on Beep exists, it's either in reviews of the episode or in physical comics information, which cannot be easily accessed. Should sources turn up, I'd be happy to improve/recreate this article, but I don't think Beep has what it takes right now. A redirect to either The Star Beast or the Doctor Who Villains List is probably the best AtD, given there really isn't much to merge beyond casting information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
For the same reason as these following...
Primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:22, 7 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) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Deleted in trwiki also. Not notable. Kadı Message 17:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dadasare Abdullahi. Daniel ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Given the current sourcing, the book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. At present, the article cites only one source independent of the subject. I have searched for additional sources but cannot find any. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 15:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Apart from being an editor of Gaskiya Ta Fi Kwabo, that should be the main work of Dadasare Abdullahi...The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable.
That is to address what Dadasare Abdullahi had undergone. In summary, the book as an autobiography passes WP: NBOOK and WP: CREATIVE for the author. Best, Mastashat ( talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)...The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article mainly has some paid/promotional sources and fails to demonstrate WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There are some mentions in publications, but not in sufficient depth. Thilsebatti ( talk) 14:50, 7 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 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Nothing much on the page suggests notability standards are met. JMWt ( talk) 14:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Archdeacon of Kilmacduagh as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Nothing much on the page suggests that notability standards are met, nothing else found JMWt ( talk) 14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Uncited, fails notability microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish• growths) 13:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete as it is not notable, and no coverage in independent sources could be found. -- BoraVoro ( talk) 09:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Coverage is mostly press releases or routine. It does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom ( talk) 14:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep the firm is old and notable, the coverage is extensive (especially in books, magazines and newspaper databases), however, the page needs to be expanded with those sources. I've just incorporated comprehensive coverage from a 2005 edition of The Economist. This piece (the Economist) particularly describes how the Amrop Hever (the firm's name at that time) works, uniting nearly 50 companies worldwide working under various local firms, who were previously merged into Amrop Hever global group. -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk) 08:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: I have substantially updated the page with new sources, enhancing its credibility and providing in-depth coverage. These updates include numerous articles from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, biggest German newspaper (I luckily have access to it), which provides a detailed portrayal of Amrop's history especially in Germany. Additionally, I included sources from Bloomberg, as well as newspapers from Peru, Chile, and other countries, covering Amrop's global impact and raising its notability. Also, the historical depth was added through sources that date back to the company's founding in 1977, including Canadian newspapers from the 1980s accessed through the Quebec National Archive. I think more sources have not been touched and used yet, as in every country, the company works or has worked under various names, and Amrop is only an umbrella name. -- DraculaParrot ( talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep it in this form. With multiple reliable sources and coverage from the 1980s, 2000s, and including recent ones from across the globe, it stands as a notable entity. -- BoraVoro ( talk) 10:01, 14 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 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
References are mostly press releases, non-idependent, passing mentions, or do not discuss Krach Institute at all. This does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom ( talk) 14:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Fediverse as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT. There is some reliable sources coverage [6], but far from sustained in time. MarioGom ( talk) 13:50, 7 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 14:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. MarioGom ( talk) 13:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. There's a Linux Magazine review [8], and a few passing mentions in technical books, but I do not think that's significant enough. MarioGom ( talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character (I'm not even sure an Inverse source helps her notability). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:59, 7 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 14:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable actor. All the performances and awards cited in the article are local to the Dallas / Fort Worth area. My WP:BEFORE searches found more local material, the usual social media and a range of run-of-the-mill publicity stuff for productions he's appeared in - just the kind of thing you'd expect for a working performer. However there's no in-depth discussion of him in notable publications that aren't local to the Dallas area, which would be needed to show he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:31, 7 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 14:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This does not even come close to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. Barely any coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk) 12:26, 7 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 14:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This was a "library" (essentially a branding excercise) which existed online for a few years and subsequently closed. All the sources cited are primary and very little third-party sources available on search. Overall I do not think this meets threshold of notability. Elshad ( talk) 12:22, 7 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) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As it currently stands, this biography is a coat rack for United States v. Flynn. The subject does not seem to meet notability criteria for a standalone article, and the events which are notable already have their own articles. Both a notability issue and potentially a BLP issue. MarioGom ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject of the article is non-notable outside of a single event, which is otherwise well documented at 2020_United_States_census#Citizenship_question_debate and Thomas_Hofeller#2020_Census_Citizenship_Question. The end result is a coatrack article with undue balance of a single issue, without any other biographic information. So this is both not notable and potentially a BLP issue. MarioGom ( talk) 09:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Sources list
|
---|
|
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No lasting notability after their fifteen minutes ended way back in 2001. Definitely fails WP:NFILM. Article has never had any viable third-party coverage of the club nor the movie since its expansion in 2005, with only Yale-related publications cited. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
″While at Yale, Mr. Newman gained a bit of notoriety for being a founding member of a group that called itself “Porn ‘N Chicken” and claimed to get together on Friday nights to watch pornographic movies and eat fried chicken. The group also announced plans to make a pornographic film of its own among the Yale library stacks featuring real students. The movie was never made, but Comedy Central made a cable television movie in 2002 based on the incident.
Mr. Newman wrote about his involvement with “Porn ‘N Chicken” on the blog on his website, which includes quotes from various news articles over the last decade that have called him a “Silicon Valley pro” and an “Internet elder statesmen.”
In a few seconds of checking I also see a 2007 discussion by ABC News. "Please Check Your Clothes at the Door," ABC News, 10 January 2007: "Also in the late 1990s, a secret society called "Porn 'n Chicken," met together to watch pornographic movies while eating fried chicken in the nude, sources tell ABCNEWS.com."
Porn 'n' Chicken, however ridiculous, probably has more notable references than half the pages on Wikipedia. Uucp ( talk) 01:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus. Giving this one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The proposals to merge or redirect to Titles in medieval Wales cannot be currently implemented, as that article does not currently exist (although a draft does). I recommend restarting a merger or redirection discussion on the talk page once the target article exists and is stable. Sandstein 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There is really only one contender for the title of King of Wales and that is Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, although he was not called King of Wales in his lifetime. There are sources that refer to him thus. For instance [10]. So this page makes a subject where none exists. The information about Gruffydd ap Llywelyn is on his page and should be there. This page could redirect there as this was the only real contender for the title. Other UK home nations do not have pages describing the concept of a king of the nation, despite more clearly having kings (England and Scotland particularly). There is no encyclopaedic subject of King of Wales outside of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely
Since this text explicitly refers to the kingdom of England and Welsh kingdoms, it's reasonable for a reader not well-versed in the history of the UK or Wales to want to know about the concept of kingship in Wales, a constituent country of the United Kingdom with a particularly rich history, and to understand if there has been a "King of Wales", and if so, who he might have been. This article is a useful general discussion of the concept, and an informative read. Elemimele ( talk) 13:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)"Wales in the Middle Ages covers the history of the country that is now called Wales, from the departure of the Romans in the early fifth century to the annexation of Wales into the Kingdom of England in the early sixteenth century. This period of about 1,000 years saw the development of regional Welsh kingdoms, Celtic conflict with the Anglo-Saxons, reducing Celtic territories, and conflict between the Welsh and the Anglo-Normans from the 11th century."
* Delete per Sirfurboy and others. Separately, I support De Causa's (and, I think, Elemimele's) idea of a page on mediaeval Welsh titles, in which the information currently presented here might, subject to consensus, be very briefly mentioned.
Richard Keatinge (
talk)
08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I still find no encyclopedic use for a page that retrojects later concepts and claims onto un-systematized historical usage. Such an approach is suitable only for fringe websites and the like. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I'm seeing a big divide and no consensus. We have Delete, Keep, Move and Redirect advocates all in about the same numbers and so far, the discussion has focused on the position of Wales as an entity, not rooted in any poicy guideiines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
about the same numbers. Thus my comment. In any case the relist has precipitated A.D.Hope's comments, which are useful to the discussion, inasmuch as regardless of outcome, they indicate how discussion should proceed on Titles in medieval Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject is non-notable. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Further, when considering fulfilment of WP:NBAND criteria, there is no evidence per my WP:BEFORE that any are met. WP:BADCHARTS applies to the claim that the band has charted. — Alalch E. 06:11, 7 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) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Notability. google searches for "Synergos" after excluding various websites named "Synergos" (the search prompt I ended up using was "synergos" -synergos.org -synergoscompanies.com -synergoscounseling.com -synergoshealth.com -synergosholdings.com -network.synergos.org -synergos-tech.com -experience.synergos.org -synergosamc.com -synergostech.com -synergosadvice.com -synergos.biz -synergosconsulting.net -synergosvc.com -synergos.ph) produced few sources that would meet Wikipedia's standards for sources, beyond some puff pieces highlighting the supposed exclusivity of Synergos' "Global Philanthropy Circle." The page was created by the Communications Director for Synergos by their own admission (see the article's talk page), so one wouldn't even be able to argue that the organisation was at least notable enough for some Wikipedian to have created it. I recognise that debates over notability, COI, etc have occurred in the past, but disagree on the consensus that was apparently reached at the time. As far as I can tell this is the first time the page has been nominated for deletion outright. CongealedBox ( talk) 05:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. I am unable to find any news coverage about this company. The only citation is their own company website. I am not sure how it got away for so long. Jupiteralien ( talk) 05:50, 7 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) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Obscure constructed language that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 05:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. I find that the arguments of those citing GEOLAND have been adequately countered by those supporting deletion, and there is enough support for deletion here for a consensus to exist. Daniel ( talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Dubiously meets the SNG GEOLAND (depending what counts as legal recognition) but doesn't meet the GNG (no SIG COV through google or newspaper). Since it doesn't meet GNG and is an undue weight on a parcel of land, this article does not have a place on wikipedia. See Talk:Notability for recent discussion in this favor. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I won't shed a single tear over this article being gone. But I think that it's a saddening shame that the database importers hid the hugely notable thing that was actually at the crossroads from us with this dren.
The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 19:56, 10 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) 10:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see it being notable. Article is a stub, very few relevant reliable sources mention the company or its products. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was No consensus. This is clearly a marginal case with arguments both for and against deleting the article, with no side clearly having the upper hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The main publications mentioned on the page are an unpublished book (which has been such for 13 years) and contributions to the OCD (an encyclopedia with 100s of contributors). She does not hold a named professorship or similar. The TV and radio appearances are routine. The other possible basis for notability is an appearance on University Challenge, which is WP:BLP1E. Previous deletion discussions have noted the BLP1E point, but that 1E seems to have seemed more significant at the time; it is now very obscure (she is currently listed on the University Challenge page as notable on account of her status as an academic... but as stated, she doesn't meet WP's standard for academic notability). Furius ( talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event.This is in fact explicitly the standard we have for GNG. It does not matter how important an aspect or event associated with a person is; if the coverage is not significant, independent, secondary, and reliable it does not count towards GNG. It is 100% about the coverage, not about what someone has done. These notability criteria aren't additive; non-significant coverage at some later date can't just be added to SUSTAINED-failing coverage to meet GNG (or even NBASIC), else we would have AfD-proof articles on every reality TV contestant ever. So that leaves the only avenue for notability as NPROF C7, but the requirements are very clear that merely providing an expert opinion occasionally -- even in high-profile venues -- does not equate to a C7 pass. You also cannot combine "halfway to achieving GNG" and "halfway to achieving NPROF C7" to reach notability because the criteria for one is invalid for the other so neither GNG nor NPROF can be met. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University"). Other examples of trivial coverage include
a simple directory entry,
a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.— siro χ o 08:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. For the record, article creators can contribute to AfD's as readily as any other editor. Daniel ( talk) 10:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A playground slide that was popularized due to a viral video of a police officer sliding down it. I believe that the video is worthy of a mention in a list of viral videos or internet memes or in the Boston City Hall Plaza article, maybe even some coverage about the slide itself as well in there for the consequences that happened because of the video, but not a whole article for the slide, which is really only notable for one relatively small and unusual event and had a bunch of other small events occur afterwards as a result. It's still just a single component of a playground structure. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made one appearance for her national team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor is there any indication of notability. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the volleyball player of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. With respect to this AfD, there is no consensus. With respect to the WP:RUSUKR editing restriction, it allows but does not mandate deletion to enforce it, leaving this up to administrators. I decline to delete the article in application of this sanction at this time, since the article does not appear to have been created with disruptive purpose or effect. Other admins remain free to come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. This slogan, which is only notable because Joe Biden said it twice in 2022, does not have enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to merit its own article. Not every sentence uttered by an American president that gets some attention in the media deserves an article of its own. At best we could merge this to Joe_Biden#Aid_to_Ukraine. SparklyNights ( t) 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:02, 29 November 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)
03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Creator has made only 27 edits so far. –NewbieHater (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC). If anyone's still wondering why we have a hard time attracting and retaining new volunteer editors, just look at the WP:BITE marks on Gornos' back. Then go look at the article he's worked hard to improve. If this gets deleted because the page creator was a "non-extended confirmed editor" I'll put it back in mainspace so it can be judged on its merits. BBQboffin grill me 06:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 00:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Prod declined, but by adding WP:PTMs, which I reverted now. Multiple things are named after Bosut, but aren't referred to as simply Bosut themselves. The hatnote already covers the ambiguity between the river and the village otherwise. Joy ( talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus not to retain, but no consensus (and some opposition) to redirecting. Daniel ( talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced for 15+ years. I wasn't able to find single source that indicates that this neighborhood exists, much less is notable. A PROD was removed with the justification that it's mentioned on a few Polish Wikipedia articles, but it's not sourced there either. HappyWith ( talk) 03:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet GNG. BEFORE pulled up no sources. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 02:11, 23 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
02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Description of the cartoons. Two relists, no one suggesting retention or providing further input. However this is a viable AtD given its origins. Star Mississippi 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Obviously a NOTINDISCRIMINATE vio Mach61 ( talk) 01:39, 23 November 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
02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article is one of many articles for acronym-groupings of countries that happened in the 2010–2012 period as a result of the popularity of the BRIC term. However, the term VISTA has not had sustained reliable coverage. In other words, it was a concept that was floated, received some minor coverage at one point in time, and has not had any coverage since. It is not notable. Thenightaway ( talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article is completely unsourced. It's someone's WP:OR essay that muses on the topic of emerging markets and debt. Thenightaway ( talk) 02:43, 7 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 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 02:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. It also seems like she has been retired since at least 2018. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. as an AtD. Firstly I find that the 'delete' arguments make a more compelling case and have appropriately refuted the only dissenting voice. This article was mentioned in the nomination and then proposed as a redirect by Neutrality, and on that basis I think this is a viable AtD. Feel free to retarget this if you feel there is a better redirect target. Daniel ( talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing notable about this concept. This is a concept coined by Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley who coined the BRIC concept and has tried to coin similar catchy terms for all kinds of groupings of countries (such as "Next Eleven" and "MIKT"). To what extent the concept has been covered by reliable sources, it's usually in context to BRIC. For example, WSJ covers the term with this headline: "O'Neill, Man Who Coined 'BRICs,' Still Likes BRICs, But Likes MINTs, Too". Thenightaway ( talk) 02:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a flashy term coined by a company which has occasionally been regurgitated by low-quality sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to advertise slogans and labels that companies bandy about to advertise their services. The term overlaps with terms such as Emerging market, Newly industrialized country, Emerging and growth-leading economies and half a dozen similar concepts. If there is anything worth keeping in this article (there isn't), then the content should be merged with any of the aforementioned articles. Thenightaway ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient for notability Star Mississippi 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Last AfD had minimal participation. Does not have coverage to meet GNG. One source merely confirms a bus runs to the centre, another source confirms the statement "a flea market opens within the mall every weekend, offering apparel at discounted prices" LibStar ( talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd appreciate some assessment of the changes made since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourcing has been argued, looking for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
20:28, 29 November 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)
01:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to NHS trust. Star Mississippi 02:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, article full of unsourced trivia and conjecture. Single reference is a public health report for the borough on Enfield, not able the trust itself. Elshad ( talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as the keep !vote is essentially OSE and this is a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; possible redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies Snickers2686 ( talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE, however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD, where she is already listed. User:Let'srun 01:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider, failed judicial nominee, lacking sourcing to warrant standalone article Snickers2686 ( talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Best to redirect to a list of failed Bill Clinton judicial appointees, where he already is listed. User:Let'srun 02:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:47, 7 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! 00:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I could not find a single secondary reliable source online. Every source cited in the article is primary, a forum post, or one person's blog. QuietCicada - Talk 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sources presented in this discussion are an effective contradiction to assertions in nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. All sources on this shooting were published between 7 and 10 August 2011. A brief burst of coverage of coverage at the time of the event, with no further analysis or discussion is textbook PERSISTENCE, and there is no demonstration of enduring notability required to pass NOTNEWS. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Per IP request: I am nominating this article for deletion because a WP:BEFORE search found exactly one source - [1], not enough to meet GNG and therefore non-notable. 166.198.251.71 ( talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) submitted on behalf of stated IP by UtherSRG (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep. That lone "Delete" !vote by an editor in good standing will likely ultimately lose to the consensus, but once there, we cannot sweep it under the rug just because the nominator was disqualified. At this point, the AfD must be allowed to run its course. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an advert more than an article; it is insufficiently supported by references, most of which do not resolve to news stories. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find reliable sources to prove its notability. It has been in CAT:UNREF for more than 16 years. Boleyn ( talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:00, 7 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! 22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Spam article relying entirely on citations to the university's own website. No third party sources, no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 22:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
MLB player with a 10-day career, other than databases there does not seem to be any coverage Valereee ( talk) 21:13, 7 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. RL0919 ( talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite the award, I can't find any coverage beyond the two sources I added to the article, which by themselves don't seem enough to establish notability, especially because they are concentrated specifically around the awarding. Can't find enough to justify a stand-alone article here. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 18:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 23:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Draftify Delete Withdrawn, speedy keep Draftify or delete, see below. Unsourced BLP from mainspace. Mass move of unreferenced articles to mainspace.
microbiologyMarcus (
petri dish·
growths)
20:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages, as specified above:
microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 20:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Notes
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Sourced solely to directories and online family history self-published websites. DrKay ( talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Howdy!
I'm honestly making this submission with something of a heavy heart, as I've prolly put in a few collective days of work into tryin' to source and improve this article. It survived two attempts at speedy deletion and a proposed deletion on the basis of the subject's promisin' international career. However, after searching high and low, from JSTOR to Naxos to, well, Google, I've dug up hardly anything at all about Mr. le Roux, let alone notable coverage. While he's no doubt got an enviable career, it doesn't seem to me that this performer meets the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. But of course, I'm more than happy to be corrected!
Thanks! ~Judy (call it in!) 18:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see any notable productions that he has performed in, except for possibly this: "In 2013, he sang in the world premiere of the Philip Glass opera The Lost, at the opening of the Linz opera house." Glass is an important composer, and singing a role in the premiere of one of his operas (though a very obscure one) is something, but it was not a long run, and the rest of his career seems to be in non-notable productions. So far, I'd say Delete, unless someone finds something major. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm not usually a fan of cutting AfD discussions short but there has been unusually heavy participation and consensus is overwhelming. No need to keep this open just to rack up the pile on !votes. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
An article about two words sometimes used together. Even ignoring the transparent editorialising in the article, Wikipedia is not a platform for documenting the conjunction of words. We already have articles (probably too many) on movements, organisations individuals etc that may have used the phrase, where the context is explained, and the intent clarified. This article does the opposite - it purports to demonstrate that the phrase has some sort of independent notability, while citing sources (poor ones) that instead amply illustrate that two words (neither of which is well-defined) can be used to describe almost anything vaguely related to Palestine, past, present, and future. This is a thoroughly misguided exercise in polemic, not even approximating to anything that belongs in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi - A group of us wrote an article that is now up for deletion and we are asking that seasoned users who know the importance of Wikipedia will vote to keep a neutral, well-researched article that gives context to global political events as well as is likely to prevent people from killing one another as they will see they are asking for the same thing.
Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
/info/en/?search=Free_Palestine_(phrase)".
"Free Palestine" used to mean something else before 1948. Yes, we get it. If redirecting, then to what target? Palestinian nationalism only covers the post-1967 sense of the phrase. Turning the page into a DAB seems silly, but is the only alternative to deletion I can think of. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Unfortunately, that requires deleting the article, because it is flamebait, but nothing more. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
The result was redirect to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Daniel ( talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable the Walking Dead character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:06, 7 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) 18:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Lots of mentions and reprinted press releases, but no SIGCOV in reliable sources. People wishing to find sources should also look under their current name, Prospanica. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I was really hoping The Star Beast would help salvage this article, but Beep just doesn't seem to meet notability thresholds, even now. All the articles I can find on him are either plot summaries and recaps, information on the casting of Miriam Margolyes, or the minor controversy caused by the pronouns scene. The latter can be easily covered by The Star Beast's main article, and if any additional commentary on Beep exists, it's either in reviews of the episode or in physical comics information, which cannot be easily accessed. Should sources turn up, I'd be happy to improve/recreate this article, but I don't think Beep has what it takes right now. A redirect to either The Star Beast or the Doctor Who Villains List is probably the best AtD, given there really isn't much to merge beyond casting information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
For the same reason as these following...
Primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:22, 7 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) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Deleted in trwiki also. Not notable. Kadı Message 17:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dadasare Abdullahi. Daniel ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Given the current sourcing, the book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. At present, the article cites only one source independent of the subject. I have searched for additional sources but cannot find any. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 15:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Apart from being an editor of Gaskiya Ta Fi Kwabo, that should be the main work of Dadasare Abdullahi...The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable.
That is to address what Dadasare Abdullahi had undergone. In summary, the book as an autobiography passes WP: NBOOK and WP: CREATIVE for the author. Best, Mastashat ( talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)...The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article mainly has some paid/promotional sources and fails to demonstrate WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There are some mentions in publications, but not in sufficient depth. Thilsebatti ( talk) 14:50, 7 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 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Nothing much on the page suggests notability standards are met. JMWt ( talk) 14:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Archdeacon of Kilmacduagh as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Nothing much on the page suggests that notability standards are met, nothing else found JMWt ( talk) 14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Uncited, fails notability microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish• growths) 13:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete as it is not notable, and no coverage in independent sources could be found. -- BoraVoro ( talk) 09:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Coverage is mostly press releases or routine. It does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom ( talk) 14:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep the firm is old and notable, the coverage is extensive (especially in books, magazines and newspaper databases), however, the page needs to be expanded with those sources. I've just incorporated comprehensive coverage from a 2005 edition of The Economist. This piece (the Economist) particularly describes how the Amrop Hever (the firm's name at that time) works, uniting nearly 50 companies worldwide working under various local firms, who were previously merged into Amrop Hever global group. -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk) 08:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: I have substantially updated the page with new sources, enhancing its credibility and providing in-depth coverage. These updates include numerous articles from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, biggest German newspaper (I luckily have access to it), which provides a detailed portrayal of Amrop's history especially in Germany. Additionally, I included sources from Bloomberg, as well as newspapers from Peru, Chile, and other countries, covering Amrop's global impact and raising its notability. Also, the historical depth was added through sources that date back to the company's founding in 1977, including Canadian newspapers from the 1980s accessed through the Quebec National Archive. I think more sources have not been touched and used yet, as in every country, the company works or has worked under various names, and Amrop is only an umbrella name. -- DraculaParrot ( talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep it in this form. With multiple reliable sources and coverage from the 1980s, 2000s, and including recent ones from across the globe, it stands as a notable entity. -- BoraVoro ( talk) 10:01, 14 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 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
References are mostly press releases, non-idependent, passing mentions, or do not discuss Krach Institute at all. This does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom ( talk) 14:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Fediverse as an AtD. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT. There is some reliable sources coverage [6], but far from sustained in time. MarioGom ( talk) 13:50, 7 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 14:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. MarioGom ( talk) 13:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. There's a Linux Magazine review [8], and a few passing mentions in technical books, but I do not think that's significant enough. MarioGom ( talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character (I'm not even sure an Inverse source helps her notability). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:59, 7 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 14:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable actor. All the performances and awards cited in the article are local to the Dallas / Fort Worth area. My WP:BEFORE searches found more local material, the usual social media and a range of run-of-the-mill publicity stuff for productions he's appeared in - just the kind of thing you'd expect for a working performer. However there's no in-depth discussion of him in notable publications that aren't local to the Dallas area, which would be needed to show he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:31, 7 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 14:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This does not even come close to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. Barely any coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk) 12:26, 7 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 14:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This was a "library" (essentially a branding excercise) which existed online for a few years and subsequently closed. All the sources cited are primary and very little third-party sources available on search. Overall I do not think this meets threshold of notability. Elshad ( talk) 12:22, 7 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) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As it currently stands, this biography is a coat rack for United States v. Flynn. The subject does not seem to meet notability criteria for a standalone article, and the events which are notable already have their own articles. Both a notability issue and potentially a BLP issue. MarioGom ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject of the article is non-notable outside of a single event, which is otherwise well documented at 2020_United_States_census#Citizenship_question_debate and Thomas_Hofeller#2020_Census_Citizenship_Question. The end result is a coatrack article with undue balance of a single issue, without any other biographic information. So this is both not notable and potentially a BLP issue. MarioGom ( talk) 09:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Sources list
|
---|
|
The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No lasting notability after their fifteen minutes ended way back in 2001. Definitely fails WP:NFILM. Article has never had any viable third-party coverage of the club nor the movie since its expansion in 2005, with only Yale-related publications cited. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
″While at Yale, Mr. Newman gained a bit of notoriety for being a founding member of a group that called itself “Porn ‘N Chicken” and claimed to get together on Friday nights to watch pornographic movies and eat fried chicken. The group also announced plans to make a pornographic film of its own among the Yale library stacks featuring real students. The movie was never made, but Comedy Central made a cable television movie in 2002 based on the incident.
Mr. Newman wrote about his involvement with “Porn ‘N Chicken” on the blog on his website, which includes quotes from various news articles over the last decade that have called him a “Silicon Valley pro” and an “Internet elder statesmen.”
In a few seconds of checking I also see a 2007 discussion by ABC News. "Please Check Your Clothes at the Door," ABC News, 10 January 2007: "Also in the late 1990s, a secret society called "Porn 'n Chicken," met together to watch pornographic movies while eating fried chicken in the nude, sources tell ABCNEWS.com."
Porn 'n' Chicken, however ridiculous, probably has more notable references than half the pages on Wikipedia. Uucp ( talk) 01:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus. Giving this one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The proposals to merge or redirect to Titles in medieval Wales cannot be currently implemented, as that article does not currently exist (although a draft does). I recommend restarting a merger or redirection discussion on the talk page once the target article exists and is stable. Sandstein 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There is really only one contender for the title of King of Wales and that is Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, although he was not called King of Wales in his lifetime. There are sources that refer to him thus. For instance [10]. So this page makes a subject where none exists. The information about Gruffydd ap Llywelyn is on his page and should be there. This page could redirect there as this was the only real contender for the title. Other UK home nations do not have pages describing the concept of a king of the nation, despite more clearly having kings (England and Scotland particularly). There is no encyclopaedic subject of King of Wales outside of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely
Since this text explicitly refers to the kingdom of England and Welsh kingdoms, it's reasonable for a reader not well-versed in the history of the UK or Wales to want to know about the concept of kingship in Wales, a constituent country of the United Kingdom with a particularly rich history, and to understand if there has been a "King of Wales", and if so, who he might have been. This article is a useful general discussion of the concept, and an informative read. Elemimele ( talk) 13:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)"Wales in the Middle Ages covers the history of the country that is now called Wales, from the departure of the Romans in the early fifth century to the annexation of Wales into the Kingdom of England in the early sixteenth century. This period of about 1,000 years saw the development of regional Welsh kingdoms, Celtic conflict with the Anglo-Saxons, reducing Celtic territories, and conflict between the Welsh and the Anglo-Normans from the 11th century."
* Delete per Sirfurboy and others. Separately, I support De Causa's (and, I think, Elemimele's) idea of a page on mediaeval Welsh titles, in which the information currently presented here might, subject to consensus, be very briefly mentioned.
Richard Keatinge (
talk)
08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I still find no encyclopedic use for a page that retrojects later concepts and claims onto un-systematized historical usage. Such an approach is suitable only for fringe websites and the like. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I'm seeing a big divide and no consensus. We have Delete, Keep, Move and Redirect advocates all in about the same numbers and so far, the discussion has focused on the position of Wales as an entity, not rooted in any poicy guideiines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
about the same numbers. Thus my comment. In any case the relist has precipitated A.D.Hope's comments, which are useful to the discussion, inasmuch as regardless of outcome, they indicate how discussion should proceed on Titles in medieval Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject is non-notable. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Further, when considering fulfilment of WP:NBAND criteria, there is no evidence per my WP:BEFORE that any are met. WP:BADCHARTS applies to the claim that the band has charted. — Alalch E. 06:11, 7 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) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Notability. google searches for "Synergos" after excluding various websites named "Synergos" (the search prompt I ended up using was "synergos" -synergos.org -synergoscompanies.com -synergoscounseling.com -synergoshealth.com -synergosholdings.com -network.synergos.org -synergos-tech.com -experience.synergos.org -synergosamc.com -synergostech.com -synergosadvice.com -synergos.biz -synergosconsulting.net -synergosvc.com -synergos.ph) produced few sources that would meet Wikipedia's standards for sources, beyond some puff pieces highlighting the supposed exclusivity of Synergos' "Global Philanthropy Circle." The page was created by the Communications Director for Synergos by their own admission (see the article's talk page), so one wouldn't even be able to argue that the organisation was at least notable enough for some Wikipedian to have created it. I recognise that debates over notability, COI, etc have occurred in the past, but disagree on the consensus that was apparently reached at the time. As far as I can tell this is the first time the page has been nominated for deletion outright. CongealedBox ( talk) 05:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NCORP. I am unable to find any news coverage about this company. The only citation is their own company website. I am not sure how it got away for so long. Jupiteralien ( talk) 05:50, 7 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) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Obscure constructed language that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 05:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. I find that the arguments of those citing GEOLAND have been adequately countered by those supporting deletion, and there is enough support for deletion here for a consensus to exist. Daniel ( talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Dubiously meets the SNG GEOLAND (depending what counts as legal recognition) but doesn't meet the GNG (no SIG COV through google or newspaper). Since it doesn't meet GNG and is an undue weight on a parcel of land, this article does not have a place on wikipedia. See Talk:Notability for recent discussion in this favor. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I won't shed a single tear over this article being gone. But I think that it's a saddening shame that the database importers hid the hugely notable thing that was actually at the crossroads from us with this dren.
The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 19:56, 10 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) 10:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see it being notable. Article is a stub, very few relevant reliable sources mention the company or its products. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was No consensus. This is clearly a marginal case with arguments both for and against deleting the article, with no side clearly having the upper hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The main publications mentioned on the page are an unpublished book (which has been such for 13 years) and contributions to the OCD (an encyclopedia with 100s of contributors). She does not hold a named professorship or similar. The TV and radio appearances are routine. The other possible basis for notability is an appearance on University Challenge, which is WP:BLP1E. Previous deletion discussions have noted the BLP1E point, but that 1E seems to have seemed more significant at the time; it is now very obscure (she is currently listed on the University Challenge page as notable on account of her status as an academic... but as stated, she doesn't meet WP's standard for academic notability). Furius ( talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event.This is in fact explicitly the standard we have for GNG. It does not matter how important an aspect or event associated with a person is; if the coverage is not significant, independent, secondary, and reliable it does not count towards GNG. It is 100% about the coverage, not about what someone has done. These notability criteria aren't additive; non-significant coverage at some later date can't just be added to SUSTAINED-failing coverage to meet GNG (or even NBASIC), else we would have AfD-proof articles on every reality TV contestant ever. So that leaves the only avenue for notability as NPROF C7, but the requirements are very clear that merely providing an expert opinion occasionally -- even in high-profile venues -- does not equate to a C7 pass. You also cannot combine "halfway to achieving GNG" and "halfway to achieving NPROF C7" to reach notability because the criteria for one is invalid for the other so neither GNG nor NPROF can be met. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University"). Other examples of trivial coverage include
a simple directory entry,
a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.— siro χ o 08:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. For the record, article creators can contribute to AfD's as readily as any other editor. Daniel ( talk) 10:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A playground slide that was popularized due to a viral video of a police officer sliding down it. I believe that the video is worthy of a mention in a list of viral videos or internet memes or in the Boston City Hall Plaza article, maybe even some coverage about the slide itself as well in there for the consequences that happened because of the video, but not a whole article for the slide, which is really only notable for one relatively small and unusual event and had a bunch of other small events occur afterwards as a result. It's still just a single component of a playground structure. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject seemingly made one appearance for her national team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor is there any indication of notability. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. Daniel ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the volleyball player of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. With respect to this AfD, there is no consensus. With respect to the WP:RUSUKR editing restriction, it allows but does not mandate deletion to enforce it, leaving this up to administrators. I decline to delete the article in application of this sanction at this time, since the article does not appear to have been created with disruptive purpose or effect. Other admins remain free to come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. This slogan, which is only notable because Joe Biden said it twice in 2022, does not have enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to merit its own article. Not every sentence uttered by an American president that gets some attention in the media deserves an article of its own. At best we could merge this to Joe_Biden#Aid_to_Ukraine. SparklyNights ( t) 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:02, 29 November 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)
03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Creator has made only 27 edits so far. –NewbieHater (talk), 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC). If anyone's still wondering why we have a hard time attracting and retaining new volunteer editors, just look at the WP:BITE marks on Gornos' back. Then go look at the article he's worked hard to improve. If this gets deleted because the page creator was a "non-extended confirmed editor" I'll put it back in mainspace so it can be judged on its merits. BBQboffin grill me 06:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [ talk to me 00:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Prod declined, but by adding WP:PTMs, which I reverted now. Multiple things are named after Bosut, but aren't referred to as simply Bosut themselves. The hatnote already covers the ambiguity between the river and the village otherwise. Joy ( talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
03:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus not to retain, but no consensus (and some opposition) to redirecting. Daniel ( talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced for 15+ years. I wasn't able to find single source that indicates that this neighborhood exists, much less is notable. A PROD was removed with the justification that it's mentioned on a few Polish Wikipedia articles, but it's not sourced there either. HappyWith ( talk) 03:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet GNG. BEFORE pulled up no sources. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 02:11, 23 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
02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Description of the cartoons. Two relists, no one suggesting retention or providing further input. However this is a viable AtD given its origins. Star Mississippi 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Obviously a NOTINDISCRIMINATE vio Mach61 ( talk) 01:39, 23 November 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
02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article is one of many articles for acronym-groupings of countries that happened in the 2010–2012 period as a result of the popularity of the BRIC term. However, the term VISTA has not had sustained reliable coverage. In other words, it was a concept that was floated, received some minor coverage at one point in time, and has not had any coverage since. It is not notable. Thenightaway ( talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article is completely unsourced. It's someone's WP:OR essay that muses on the topic of emerging markets and debt. Thenightaway ( talk) 02:43, 7 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 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 02:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. It also seems like she has been retired since at least 2018. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. as an AtD. Firstly I find that the 'delete' arguments make a more compelling case and have appropriately refuted the only dissenting voice. This article was mentioned in the nomination and then proposed as a redirect by Neutrality, and on that basis I think this is a viable AtD. Feel free to retarget this if you feel there is a better redirect target. Daniel ( talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing notable about this concept. This is a concept coined by Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley who coined the BRIC concept and has tried to coin similar catchy terms for all kinds of groupings of countries (such as "Next Eleven" and "MIKT"). To what extent the concept has been covered by reliable sources, it's usually in context to BRIC. For example, WSJ covers the term with this headline: "O'Neill, Man Who Coined 'BRICs,' Still Likes BRICs, But Likes MINTs, Too". Thenightaway ( talk) 02:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a flashy term coined by a company which has occasionally been regurgitated by low-quality sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to advertise slogans and labels that companies bandy about to advertise their services. The term overlaps with terms such as Emerging market, Newly industrialized country, Emerging and growth-leading economies and half a dozen similar concepts. If there is anything worth keeping in this article (there isn't), then the content should be merged with any of the aforementioned articles. Thenightaway ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient for notability Star Mississippi 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Last AfD had minimal participation. Does not have coverage to meet GNG. One source merely confirms a bus runs to the centre, another source confirms the statement "a flea market opens within the mall every weekend, offering apparel at discounted prices" LibStar ( talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd appreciate some assessment of the changes made since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourcing has been argued, looking for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
20:28, 29 November 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)
01:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to NHS trust. Star Mississippi 02:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Defunct organisation, not particularly notable, article full of unsourced trivia and conjecture. Single reference is a public health report for the borough on Enfield, not able the trust itself. Elshad ( talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as the keep !vote is essentially OSE and this is a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider; possible redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies Snickers2686 ( talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE, however here as a failed judicial nominee we have a redirect target related to it as a WP:AFD, where she is already listed. User:Let'srun 01:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider, failed judicial nominee, lacking sourcing to warrant standalone article Snickers2686 ( talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies: Agree with the nom that this subject is not notable and does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Best to redirect to a list of failed Bill Clinton judicial appointees, where he already is listed. User:Let'srun 02:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
01:47, 7 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! 00:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I could not find a single secondary reliable source online. Every source cited in the article is primary, a forum post, or one person's blog. QuietCicada - Talk 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sources presented in this discussion are an effective contradiction to assertions in nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. All sources on this shooting were published between 7 and 10 August 2011. A brief burst of coverage of coverage at the time of the event, with no further analysis or discussion is textbook PERSISTENCE, and there is no demonstration of enduring notability required to pass NOTNEWS. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)