![]() |
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
While he is on the British para-climbing team, there is little SIGCOV in any of the main climbing RS on him (neither British, nor international, per WP:NCLIMB), and zero SIGCOV in any national British quality non-climbing RS either. All his refs are passing mentions on results in competitions. As yet, no real GNG I can see, unfortunately. Aszx5000 ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. In terms of numerically, there are six editors arguing to keep (one of whom qualified as "weak"), and twelve to delete (two of whom qualified as "weak"). Of course, AfD is not a simple vote or head count, but the numeric result is also not entirely irrelevant or meaningless.
Editors on both sides made reasonable, policy-based arguments for their positions; there was not one side or the other making entirely indefensible or unreasonable arguments. Those arguing to keep argued that there is sufficient reference material available to sustain an article on the topic, while those arguing against tended to argue that the topic is both overly speculative and may constitute needless content forking of material already covered in a parent article. With all this considered, the consensus, while not unanimous, is that this is not a suitable topic for a separate article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to be nothing but predictions, extrapolation, speculation, and "possible future history". This seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I do not see how the article could be re-written or edited to change that. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions,
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable,
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included,
Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. The claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL backs deletion is not true. Super Ψ Dro 23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.Are you suggesting that this article is about a notable artistic work (like Star Trek, or Brave New World)? Or an essay or academic or non-fiction work like The Population Bomb or Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow? Those are appropriate topics because they are about a specific notable artistic or academic work that happens to be about a fictional future, or a specific prediction (that itself is notable). This article is more like "Weapons to be used in World War III", than the other examples. Compiling sources into some sort of WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH prediction is not appropriate. If there are specific notable predictions about the Russo-Ukrainian War, in art, academia etc. they can be addressed in an article about that specific work, not the current article which is more in line with "Weapons to be used in World War III". Alternatively, if the relevant predictions are not notable enough for their own article it might be appropriate to mention them in the main article about the Russo-Ukrainian War or one of its many sub-articles. That is not a reason to keep this article though. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it., which I believe is a warning against WP:OR, not against any articles on predictions. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
almost certain to take place. War is inherently unpredictable.
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.To the first part of this, the guidance would generally refer to the sciences or theories established within other academic contexts. To the last part, the article has an inherent POV issue.
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable.However (per WP:ONUS), verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Another key issue is the quality of sources. Most of the sources relied upon are news sources. These news sources may be written by experts but they are neither expert sources nor of particularly good quality that would be associated with peer reviewed academic journals. Sorry but this seems much too long a bow to draw. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.Notability plays a big role in here, and this topic does receive a wide coverage in sources which even though are not of the highest quality, are reliable. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
scientific extrapolations. Sources cited in Ultimate fate of the universe are from academic journals and prima facie peer reviewed. The Ultimate fate of the universe is therefore presented as an exception for
scheduled or expected future eventsbecause it is exceptional. The Future of Earth has similar merits to the Ultimate fate of the universe with respect to theory and sourcing. On the other hand, I have already identified the inherent unpredictability of war, the POV inherent in the title, the strength of assertions compared with scientific theory (extrapolations) and the comparative weakness wrt news sources v peer reviewed sources. Articles subject to CRYSTAL have a much higher threshold of notability. It is not just a matter that sources exist but the depth of sources and several other considerations per CRYSTAL. There is absolutely no comparison between the AfD and the Ultimate fate of the universe. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. I also see no NPOV violation in the title. Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
a thing that existsis definitively not a threshold for having an article in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
some politician said that Ukraine will winare not productive to the discussion. If this article does violate Wikipedia politics will be decided by the outcome of this AfD. I do not believe discussion based on these personal assumptions which as evidenced here are not shared by all other editors is appropriate.
the province of blogs and searswhen we have think tanks and major newspapers discussing them. Super Ψ Dro 16:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Don't see any evidence this report meets WP:GNG. Found a few passing references to it as a source, but that's about it. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 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.
If some sources surface in the future, this article can be restored and improved. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
No importance, no sources. Jingiby ( talk) 07:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@ 58.179.181.212: the part of Wikipedia's policies that the article doesn't meet is references. Since you seem familiar with this event, perhaps you can help us out there? Elinruby ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC) @ Kajmakcalan: Elinruby ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The bio for Patchev has the following references for the battle:<ref>[http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/hs/hs_a_26.html Писма и изповеди на един четник,XXVI,Хр.Силянов,1902 г.]</ref><ref>Николов, Борис. "Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация. Войводи и ръководители (1893–1934). Биографично-библиографски справочник". София, 2001, стр. 125.</ref> Elinruby ( talk) 00:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No analysis of the sources presented has occurred. A fourth re-list is inadvisable. Therefore give it a bit of time for those who argue the topic is notable to improve the article. If the article is not improved with in-depth, independent, reliable sources then it should be brought back here again. And hopefully with not as many WP:VAGUEWAVES. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non- WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Stack (abstract data type). 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:CFORK of Stack (abstract data type) Vozul ( talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Former footballer, no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only coverage that's even close to decent that I can find is his retirement announcement on the Singapore FA's website. Straits Times has a passing mention and Bola has a match report which mentions him thrice. No significant coverage located. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that this fails WP:NACTOR due to the lack of "significant roles in multiple, notable ... productions". Draftification undone by the article creator. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 20:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Redemption Paws. This is complicated. There is definitely some nonsense happening, which is why I will protect the redirect. However the consensus appears clear that Redemption Paws is notable, and there has been no case made why a redirect should not exist since Simone is tied to the organization. Star Mississippi 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Previously deleted back in 2021, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone. Archive of that version can be found here. I think this version differs substantially enough from the previous that it is ineligible for a speedy deletion. As per the previous 2021 deletion, I don't think she's notable as a musician. As noted in Willondon's table in the last AfD: Most of the sources are either A: Only tangentially about the subject, B: in self published blogs, or C: Appear to be pay-for-play publications. Redemption Paws (the animal charity she runs), which seems to have had a number of controversies may be notable, but that coverage isn't really about her specifically. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Musicians [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteriaand the creator of the article Redrosally suggests Criterion 1 applies. However, while there is one brief review in Earmilk, [33], the other sources in the article about Late July, i.e. v13.net, which operates a promotional business; Rival Online, which has an aspiring writer and writer on staff and reproduces what Simone says about her music, as well as the same superficial marketing copy reproduced on many low-quality sites; Elicit Magazine, which promotes itself as "Every Music Artist Has A Story, We Tell Yours" and "We work to give musicians the opportunity to be heard by the people they’ve always dreamed would vibe to their music" and is not a review - it is reproduced marketing copy announcing the release of a single; Influence Insider, another SEO clickbait website (check out its sidebar) that posts an interview and overview of songs without a byline; the Shipwreck'd! blog that "services the fashion and entertainment industry with press releases, bios, publicity and other communications"; Canadian Beats Media blog "Check out the video below and find out more about Late July via our Five Questions With segment"; Grimy Goods blog reproducing marketing copy and what Simone says; Too Much Love media company announcement based on what Simone says; Music Talkers announcement based on what Simone says about no longer working as Late July, posted by "a regular contributor for established press release distribution website Release-News.com"; and a basic All Music entry, do not support notability per this guideline, because these are not independent and reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that all editors above should reevaluate their votes based on these sources.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepers215 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership.Beccaynr ( talk) 01:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think founding a notable organisation and having a mildly notable musical career justify my keep vote, so I don't plan to change it (but I have an open mind, I could be persuaded), so the guideline seems relevant to that aspect of this discussion, and I discussed the Toronto Star coverage in my !vote comment [35] - the mentions appear to mostly be related to her statements, which is not independent coverage of her. Also, the Toronto Star is technically one source, publishing multiple articles in a short period of time - it seems to help support a redirect after this article is deleted, but does not appear to support WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC notability, particularly after the quality, independence, and depth of the other available sources are closely reviewed. There does not appear to be significant coverage based on combined independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As you can tell from the paid media coverage Nicole Simone has a habit of trying to buy fame and awards. Analysis of her social media following suggests she may have paid for a significant amount of her followers, and therefore I would not be surprised if she paid someone to create this page again, many business will take your money to do this. Therefore I find Redrosally’s involvement quite interesting, particularly how they “added more info about redemption paws” to the article as indicated on the talk page, yet managed to exclude all mention of the Toronto Stars articles. Arguably those articles are the most significant reporting done on the organization and also some of the most recent. I don’t find the section on redemption paws to be neutral as Redrosally wrote it given that omission. I also find immediately jumping to the assertion that they are being bullied to be interesting as on Redemption Paws social media they have used the same language that they are “being bullied” in response to any negative criticism.
I do support a redirect to Redemption Paws as I agree the organization is notable. However I have concerns about that article remaining neutral. I originally nominated her article after becoming increasingly frustrated with Greg, a personal friend of Nicole gatekeeping the edits and reverting anything that wasn’t positive.
Further Nicole herself has already tweeted about this Afd discussion, however in a way that grossly misrepresents the situation saying “In 2021 my Wikipedia was vandalized and removed. This year it was brought back and is now being removed but I'm just watching it like OK, how does this keep happening. Read it while you can! lol”
I find it quite suspect that she immediately knew about the page creation, unless she had a hand in its creation. Also her saying that it was vandalism and no mention of it being removed for lack of notability seems intentionally misleading.
Oaktree b Said “based on what I've read in the last AfD and some of these articles, she tends to sue people that don't paint a flattering picture of the organization. Not sure I'm wanting to venture down that rabbit hole by creating the article”
This is correct. Currently she is suing the former foster of Mayo (the dog profiled in the Toronto Star article who was sent to Newfoundland with no plan and eventually euthanized) for libel, slander and breach of contract. They have been maintaining an instagram account “dkfosters” where they have continued to highlight issues with Redemption paws and share other peoples experiences. This could very well be a legal rabbit hole and your concerns are valid.
She is also currently involved in a legal dispute over the ownership of a former foster dog that was adopted by their foster parent. Months after adopting when the owner posted a comment on the Redemption Flaws website Redemption Paws decided to take the dog back (by taking it from a vet without the owner present) and assert it had been stolen. A gofundme for legal fees have been started by the owner (espieandej on instagram). This legal action appears to be retaliation.
Redemption Paws themselves have recently posted about these lawsuits on their own social media, attempting to defend that they aren’t SLAPP suits.
I think that’s it… just wanted to provide some context and share my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSpamming ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Without the verification, a redirect is not a viable AtD Star Mississippi 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:V as admitted by the creator when writing the article The mentions about Bhanumati are unnamed in History but little mentions about Queen Bhanumati. So, essentially this is an admission that sources do not exist, therefore, we cannot have this article on Wikipedia. The article is copied and pasted without attribution from Bharatpedia, a user-generated Wiki. This is not acceptable as we can only write articles about topics based in WP:RS, otherwise we leave ourselves open to hoaxes and WP:OR. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE search returns no significant coverage, though is complicated by the fact that "street fury" returns so many false positives, even when restricting searches to newspapers from the relevant timeframe and part of the world. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Probable hoax. Sent to Draft:Devamala (Shunga dynasty) as the article is unsourced and this was contested by the creator who copied and pasted it back to mainspace with no improvements whatsoever. The article has been copied over entirely from Bharatpedia, an unreliable source that anyone can edit. I note that the IP that has edited the Bharatpedia article is the same one that has added content about Devamala to Agnimitra and tried to add the same unsourced info to Pushyamitra Shunga. See also Simple English AfD where multiple editors in good standing have attempted to find sources to no avail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; well sourced and expanded now. ( non-admin closure) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This is interesting, buuut ... absolutely not well or widely documented and/or discussed. Essentially this is material from the introduction of the re-issue of one of the novels; otherwise coverage of both author(s) and books seems lacking. If someone can come up with a couple reviews or some non-primary biographical coverage, please do. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Libertarian Party of Texas. Randykitty ( talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG. Note that being national chair of a minor party does
not confer presumed notability. The only available sources seem to be
run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, trivial mentions, and
WP:PRIMARY/non-
RS. My
WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines found no
WP:RS-based significant coverage of her. As an
alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to
2021 Libertarian National Committee chair special election
Libertarian Party of Texas#Officeholders.
Sal2100 (
talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
*Comment: Note that I have changed the proposed redirect page based on discussion below.
Sal2100 (
talk)
19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. A loose necktie ( talk) 16:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Could not find WP:SIGCOV for this football player/YouTuber. The article has remained unsourced since it's creation over 10 years ago. Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. So there is enough here to keep. Frank Anchor 03:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No sources at all, nor could I find any. This is also unfortunately the case on the corresponding article from hiwiki. Silikonz 💬 14:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no references to Rachnadevi but she is the wife of Shrigupta.Silikonz 💬 14:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 13:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about an entrepreneur, not
properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs. As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they and their companies exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is not referenced to any significant
reliable source coverage about him, instead citing a mixture of
primary source press releases from his own companies, blogs, directory entries, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and purely tangential verification of stray facts in sources that completely fail to name Rudy Rupak in conjunction with them at all, none of which are notability-building sources.
There's also a likely
conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a virtual
WP:SPA whose editing interests revolve almost exclusively around Rudy Rupak -- even the stuff in their edit history that doesn't seem obviously connected, such as
Sainte-Adèle and
Les Misérables, still hinged on finding ways to shoehorn Rudy Rupak into them.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTENNIS: She has only won one title that has a prize money higher than $15,000, and she did not reach a W60 final. Timothytyy ( talk) 09:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The level of the tournament doesn't matter for GNG, what matters is that the coverage of the player is significant and that the source is a reliable one. Iffy★ Chat -- 14:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
13:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Mostly WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader ( talk) 12:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, has only had minor roles in mostly non-notable productions. Can't see how he passes WP:NACTOR. Copied over from the repeatedly-declined Draft:Adli Shinichi, with the only difference being the removal of the WP:UPE tag. Only bit of coverage in WP:RS I can find is baskl.com.my but this is a trivial mention in a cast list. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Can't find any in-depth coverage on this person. Current sourcing does not have a single in-depth reference from an independent, secondary, reliable source. In fact, half the sources do not even mention him. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Sherdog and tapology do not consider? these are his personal pages. Also, since he is posted as a coach, I think it's okay to list his fighters and link to their achievements under his leadership. Gor is the founder of the martial arts academy, I'm adding a link to the academy's website in the article. Reached such a coaching level that the fighter of his club is signed to ufc. The article in the Armenian Wikipedia is posted and not appealed, Russian, German and French versions are in the process of being developed. TT me 12:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 12:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable school system. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. BookishReader ( talk) 11:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines as is and I found zero additional coverage. Previous AfD claims 1. Notability per WP:BAND #5 (at least one album was released by Tragic Hero Records so it might qualify there, but that alone wouldn't clear it for me) and 2. Coverage potentially existing in "outlets like Alternative Press and Absolute Punk" which was not linked and said to be "difficult to surface through casual Googling". Worth considering, but that comment is over two years old and nobody's tracked down said coverage yet so its existence is still only an assumption. QuietHere ( talk) 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Estrella–Pantaleon Bridge. (non-admin closure) SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 11:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be notable by sources. The two sources presented here fail spectacularly. One (now dead; archived copy) talks about the old residence of a former mayor whose surname is carried by this road, but there is no single mention of the street in the source. Another, from GMA News, talks about the opening of the Estrella–Pantaleon Bridge, but no mention of the street itself even if it connects to the bridge. In effect both sources tried to infer through name but lean towards WP:OR.
Unless more reliable sources that do not trivially mention the street are presented, this street fails in notability dramatically. Failure to become eligible for WP:GEOROAD! JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. I did a WP:BEFORE, but there is nothing in newspaper/magazines about this obscure school. BookishReader ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 10:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 16:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of notability for this list of results for a minor competition with unremarkable results. For example, searching for the winner of the 10.000m, Lahcen Essoussi gives a tiny handful of hits, the best being a non-independent source of the Monegasque Athletics Federation confirming his medals [52] but nothing further about him [53]. If even the winner of an event (plus another medal) is so completely lacking in coverage, then it seems unlikely that this received much coverage beyond routine results reports. Fram ( talk) 08:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
WJ94 (
talk)
10:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was Keep per Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Koopinator ( talk) 13:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This article relies strongly on primary sources, without any secondary sources discussing this in sufficient detail to establish notability. The only secondary source currently in this article, Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography, merely gives a
WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Due to this, along with its very meagre size (half of which is just explaining the context), I propose that it be deleted or merged into
Archimedes#Biography.
Koopinator (
talk)
09:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, sources don't appear to be neutral. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
* Delete: It's a
WP:TOOSOON and creator seems to be connected to the subject. ---
👑Misterrrrr👑 (
talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC) -
WP:SOCKSTRIKE -
Beccaynr (
talk)
18:51, 16 February 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! 08:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Sources appear to be non-independent or paid interviews/articles. echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The article was previously deleted in 2017 as not notable. Soon after, it was re-created but with different content. It's not only about notability concerns. WP:BLP also applies, and the whole content about the subject may more likely fail that policy. Recently, I asked others about contentious content. One was more concerned about the subject's notability more than what's written about him, including supposed coatracking
Before asking around, I created a draft that was supposed to replace the content. However, as I was developing the draft, I couldn't find any reliable source on newer updates, including current marital status. The latest I can find is 2006 or 2007. I haven't found a reliable source verifying a supposed divorce, so I decided to have the draft deleted. Furthermore, post-Survivor info about him seems more negative and disturbing.
As he appeared in only Survivor: Thailand, the article should be redirected to either that season article or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Alternatively, if the article lacks any substantial value, then it should be re-deleted. George Ho ( talk) 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be the name of the physical feature just to the south, transferred to a house and outbuildings via a state highway map. I find no evidence for a town per se; GHits are for the other location, the actual mesa, or a dude ranch in Sedona. Mangoe ( talk) 04:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable individual; sourcing used is paid PR pieces (Forbes) or a PR piece self-published by the company mentioned in the PR piece. Sources turn up a gangster with a similar name, nothing for this individual. Appears promotional. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Notoriety is based on the existence of adequate sources, not on the status of the sources
The reference section doesn't really matter, however there are others that are included in the technology and economics section
That the other Sachin is better positioned in English has no influence on the notoriety of this Sachin
WB:BIO for example specifically states: avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g. Google results).
The rules state that if an article can be fixed through normal editing then it is not a candidate for Afd, the main problem was the references however it has been shown that the person has reliable and independent sources so the problem was editing, being fixed then it is no longer a candidate for deleting search
WP:BEFORE consequently the article should be maintained
Sawelito (
talk) 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Striking - this is a sock of the article's author, who has already cast a !vote here.
Girth Summit
(blether)
10:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
A topo map label in the hills which disappears and then turns into a swamp labelled "Rosebud Cienega". No sign of habitation past or present, and nothing but junk GHits. Mangoe ( talk) 04:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "delete" !votes, especially the one by BusterD, have the stronger arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Other than the Propublica piece, there is no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 02:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist (although since no one has commented after the first 2 relists, I might be hoping in vain for additional participation.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing/award is insufficient Star Mississippi 17:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
BLP article for a government official and author. Sources do not meet SIGCOV for GNG or any other SNG. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This is a difficult AFD to close as I see blocked accounts arguing both for Delete and Keep and long-time editors basing their own decisions on the opinions of sockpuppets. This article can't be deleted via CSD G5 as there are many other editors who have contributed to this article. I think this discussion is too tainted by sockpuppetry and relisting will not help.
I recommend launching a follow-up AFD that, hopefully, will be sockpuppet-free. No penalty for editors copying their comments here to a second AFD or for starting a new AFD as soon as this one is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:BIO, no Notability, all the refs are Trivial mentions and talk about the magazine which he works in not about him, many references are unreliable an unknown websites, ref no. 7 are YouTube link and refs (12 - 13) are not independent (guest articles written by the person), The article is clearly WP:MASK with a lot of puffing phrases and the article's creator manipulate with sources because he knows that most of the users do not know the Arabic language. Adelk220 ( talk) 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I'm still not seeing a consensus here among editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL pieces for such a TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help if those editors wanting to Keep this article provided a link to article with SIGCOV rather than just saying they exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Potential a nonnotable actress. Barely any third-party sources covering her and she didn't have main roles in many television programs/movies. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Not independently sourced, and WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Appears to have been a weekly ranking of NFL teams that is now shut down (based on no rankings for the 2022 season). It's existed as a 2 sentence article with a single reference since creation in 2012. Doesn't appear to pass GNG or any other notability requirements that I'm aware of after a WP:BEFORE search. Hey man im josh ( talk) 02:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
As a microstub that duplicates a database violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 due to the lack of sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search found no suitable sources.
Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and WP:NOTDATABASE BilledMammal ( talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe that a decent biographical article can be produced based off of these sources, and when I have time will try to expand it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. I don't have access to all of those, but of those I do most appear trivial and none contain WP:SIGCOV; not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, and a violation of WP:NSPORT which forbids us from having articles on sportspeople unless we can find at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus among the options mentioned (Delete, Draftify, Merge, Redirect and one lone Keep) but a No consensus close is not acceptable as the one consensus that comes through is that this article should be removed from main space. So, I'm relisting to see if one of the four options gets a lion's share of the opinions from those editors who are participating in this discussion. Otherwise, I would be closing this as a Super Vote which is inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
PR Article: Deleted in her home Wikipedia: Reason: Far below notable. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten
She is an unknown model and low level local "politician". She is one of 54 community people in a small district. Not eaven a salery. There is no level under this level in politics. Its an "office" far below the level of a small mayor.
Dosent hit WP:POLITICIAN also not WP:ENT. She is kind of the german version of Brittany Pettibone - with less fans. 200 subscribers on you tube. https://www.youtube.com/@marie-theresekaiser1446 MumQuin ( talk) 06:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep. She fails WP:NPOL because she is only a Landkreis-level elected official, i.e. local. However, for better or worse, she has attracted enough significant coverage in the German national press as cited in the article (see the article in Der Spiegel [ [94], another in Die Tageszeitung [95], an article in Tag24 [96], and so on.) Fiachra10003 ( talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, full of dubious sources, including forum posts among others. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It's unclear what purpose this DBA serves. The first suggestion of Kao (bull) could possibly be misspelled as "Cow" (and perhaps this could be redirected to it), but no one would ever search for the second in such a manner. I recomend deletion to avoid all ambiguity. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 00:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable sports journalist, the only source available in the article is clearly unreliable, and the only sources I could find from a search were either also unreliable or primary sources. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
While he is on the British para-climbing team, there is little SIGCOV in any of the main climbing RS on him (neither British, nor international, per WP:NCLIMB), and zero SIGCOV in any national British quality non-climbing RS either. All his refs are passing mentions on results in competitions. As yet, no real GNG I can see, unfortunately. Aszx5000 ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. In terms of numerically, there are six editors arguing to keep (one of whom qualified as "weak"), and twelve to delete (two of whom qualified as "weak"). Of course, AfD is not a simple vote or head count, but the numeric result is also not entirely irrelevant or meaningless.
Editors on both sides made reasonable, policy-based arguments for their positions; there was not one side or the other making entirely indefensible or unreasonable arguments. Those arguing to keep argued that there is sufficient reference material available to sustain an article on the topic, while those arguing against tended to argue that the topic is both overly speculative and may constitute needless content forking of material already covered in a parent article. With all this considered, the consensus, while not unanimous, is that this is not a suitable topic for a separate article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to be nothing but predictions, extrapolation, speculation, and "possible future history". This seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I do not see how the article could be re-written or edited to change that. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions,
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable,
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included,
Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. The claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL backs deletion is not true. Super Ψ Dro 23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.Are you suggesting that this article is about a notable artistic work (like Star Trek, or Brave New World)? Or an essay or academic or non-fiction work like The Population Bomb or Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow? Those are appropriate topics because they are about a specific notable artistic or academic work that happens to be about a fictional future, or a specific prediction (that itself is notable). This article is more like "Weapons to be used in World War III", than the other examples. Compiling sources into some sort of WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH prediction is not appropriate. If there are specific notable predictions about the Russo-Ukrainian War, in art, academia etc. they can be addressed in an article about that specific work, not the current article which is more in line with "Weapons to be used in World War III". Alternatively, if the relevant predictions are not notable enough for their own article it might be appropriate to mention them in the main article about the Russo-Ukrainian War or one of its many sub-articles. That is not a reason to keep this article though. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it., which I believe is a warning against WP:OR, not against any articles on predictions. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
almost certain to take place. War is inherently unpredictable.
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.To the first part of this, the guidance would generally refer to the sciences or theories established within other academic contexts. To the last part, the article has an inherent POV issue.
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable.However (per WP:ONUS), verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Another key issue is the quality of sources. Most of the sources relied upon are news sources. These news sources may be written by experts but they are neither expert sources nor of particularly good quality that would be associated with peer reviewed academic journals. Sorry but this seems much too long a bow to draw. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.Notability plays a big role in here, and this topic does receive a wide coverage in sources which even though are not of the highest quality, are reliable. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
scientific extrapolations. Sources cited in Ultimate fate of the universe are from academic journals and prima facie peer reviewed. The Ultimate fate of the universe is therefore presented as an exception for
scheduled or expected future eventsbecause it is exceptional. The Future of Earth has similar merits to the Ultimate fate of the universe with respect to theory and sourcing. On the other hand, I have already identified the inherent unpredictability of war, the POV inherent in the title, the strength of assertions compared with scientific theory (extrapolations) and the comparative weakness wrt news sources v peer reviewed sources. Articles subject to CRYSTAL have a much higher threshold of notability. It is not just a matter that sources exist but the depth of sources and several other considerations per CRYSTAL. There is absolutely no comparison between the AfD and the Ultimate fate of the universe. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. I also see no NPOV violation in the title. Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
a thing that existsis definitively not a threshold for having an article in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
some politician said that Ukraine will winare not productive to the discussion. If this article does violate Wikipedia politics will be decided by the outcome of this AfD. I do not believe discussion based on these personal assumptions which as evidenced here are not shared by all other editors is appropriate.
the province of blogs and searswhen we have think tanks and major newspapers discussing them. Super Ψ Dro 16:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Don't see any evidence this report meets WP:GNG. Found a few passing references to it as a source, but that's about it. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 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.
If some sources surface in the future, this article can be restored and improved. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
No importance, no sources. Jingiby ( talk) 07:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@ 58.179.181.212: the part of Wikipedia's policies that the article doesn't meet is references. Since you seem familiar with this event, perhaps you can help us out there? Elinruby ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC) @ Kajmakcalan: Elinruby ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The bio for Patchev has the following references for the battle:<ref>[http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/hs/hs_a_26.html Писма и изповеди на един четник,XXVI,Хр.Силянов,1902 г.]</ref><ref>Николов, Борис. "Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация. Войводи и ръководители (1893–1934). Биографично-библиографски справочник". София, 2001, стр. 125.</ref> Elinruby ( talk) 00:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No analysis of the sources presented has occurred. A fourth re-list is inadvisable. Therefore give it a bit of time for those who argue the topic is notable to improve the article. If the article is not improved with in-depth, independent, reliable sources then it should be brought back here again. And hopefully with not as many WP:VAGUEWAVES. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non- WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Stack (abstract data type). 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:CFORK of Stack (abstract data type) Vozul ( talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Former footballer, no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only coverage that's even close to decent that I can find is his retirement announcement on the Singapore FA's website. Straits Times has a passing mention and Bola has a match report which mentions him thrice. No significant coverage located. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that this fails WP:NACTOR due to the lack of "significant roles in multiple, notable ... productions". Draftification undone by the article creator. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 20:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Redemption Paws. This is complicated. There is definitely some nonsense happening, which is why I will protect the redirect. However the consensus appears clear that Redemption Paws is notable, and there has been no case made why a redirect should not exist since Simone is tied to the organization. Star Mississippi 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Previously deleted back in 2021, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone. Archive of that version can be found here. I think this version differs substantially enough from the previous that it is ineligible for a speedy deletion. As per the previous 2021 deletion, I don't think she's notable as a musician. As noted in Willondon's table in the last AfD: Most of the sources are either A: Only tangentially about the subject, B: in self published blogs, or C: Appear to be pay-for-play publications. Redemption Paws (the animal charity she runs), which seems to have had a number of controversies may be notable, but that coverage isn't really about her specifically. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Musicians [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteriaand the creator of the article Redrosally suggests Criterion 1 applies. However, while there is one brief review in Earmilk, [33], the other sources in the article about Late July, i.e. v13.net, which operates a promotional business; Rival Online, which has an aspiring writer and writer on staff and reproduces what Simone says about her music, as well as the same superficial marketing copy reproduced on many low-quality sites; Elicit Magazine, which promotes itself as "Every Music Artist Has A Story, We Tell Yours" and "We work to give musicians the opportunity to be heard by the people they’ve always dreamed would vibe to their music" and is not a review - it is reproduced marketing copy announcing the release of a single; Influence Insider, another SEO clickbait website (check out its sidebar) that posts an interview and overview of songs without a byline; the Shipwreck'd! blog that "services the fashion and entertainment industry with press releases, bios, publicity and other communications"; Canadian Beats Media blog "Check out the video below and find out more about Late July via our Five Questions With segment"; Grimy Goods blog reproducing marketing copy and what Simone says; Too Much Love media company announcement based on what Simone says; Music Talkers announcement based on what Simone says about no longer working as Late July, posted by "a regular contributor for established press release distribution website Release-News.com"; and a basic All Music entry, do not support notability per this guideline, because these are not independent and reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that all editors above should reevaluate their votes based on these sources.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepers215 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership.Beccaynr ( talk) 01:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think founding a notable organisation and having a mildly notable musical career justify my keep vote, so I don't plan to change it (but I have an open mind, I could be persuaded), so the guideline seems relevant to that aspect of this discussion, and I discussed the Toronto Star coverage in my !vote comment [35] - the mentions appear to mostly be related to her statements, which is not independent coverage of her. Also, the Toronto Star is technically one source, publishing multiple articles in a short period of time - it seems to help support a redirect after this article is deleted, but does not appear to support WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC notability, particularly after the quality, independence, and depth of the other available sources are closely reviewed. There does not appear to be significant coverage based on combined independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As you can tell from the paid media coverage Nicole Simone has a habit of trying to buy fame and awards. Analysis of her social media following suggests she may have paid for a significant amount of her followers, and therefore I would not be surprised if she paid someone to create this page again, many business will take your money to do this. Therefore I find Redrosally’s involvement quite interesting, particularly how they “added more info about redemption paws” to the article as indicated on the talk page, yet managed to exclude all mention of the Toronto Stars articles. Arguably those articles are the most significant reporting done on the organization and also some of the most recent. I don’t find the section on redemption paws to be neutral as Redrosally wrote it given that omission. I also find immediately jumping to the assertion that they are being bullied to be interesting as on Redemption Paws social media they have used the same language that they are “being bullied” in response to any negative criticism.
I do support a redirect to Redemption Paws as I agree the organization is notable. However I have concerns about that article remaining neutral. I originally nominated her article after becoming increasingly frustrated with Greg, a personal friend of Nicole gatekeeping the edits and reverting anything that wasn’t positive.
Further Nicole herself has already tweeted about this Afd discussion, however in a way that grossly misrepresents the situation saying “In 2021 my Wikipedia was vandalized and removed. This year it was brought back and is now being removed but I'm just watching it like OK, how does this keep happening. Read it while you can! lol”
I find it quite suspect that she immediately knew about the page creation, unless she had a hand in its creation. Also her saying that it was vandalism and no mention of it being removed for lack of notability seems intentionally misleading.
Oaktree b Said “based on what I've read in the last AfD and some of these articles, she tends to sue people that don't paint a flattering picture of the organization. Not sure I'm wanting to venture down that rabbit hole by creating the article”
This is correct. Currently she is suing the former foster of Mayo (the dog profiled in the Toronto Star article who was sent to Newfoundland with no plan and eventually euthanized) for libel, slander and breach of contract. They have been maintaining an instagram account “dkfosters” where they have continued to highlight issues with Redemption paws and share other peoples experiences. This could very well be a legal rabbit hole and your concerns are valid.
She is also currently involved in a legal dispute over the ownership of a former foster dog that was adopted by their foster parent. Months after adopting when the owner posted a comment on the Redemption Flaws website Redemption Paws decided to take the dog back (by taking it from a vet without the owner present) and assert it had been stolen. A gofundme for legal fees have been started by the owner (espieandej on instagram). This legal action appears to be retaliation.
Redemption Paws themselves have recently posted about these lawsuits on their own social media, attempting to defend that they aren’t SLAPP suits.
I think that’s it… just wanted to provide some context and share my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSpamming ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Without the verification, a redirect is not a viable AtD Star Mississippi 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Article fails WP:V as admitted by the creator when writing the article The mentions about Bhanumati are unnamed in History but little mentions about Queen Bhanumati. So, essentially this is an admission that sources do not exist, therefore, we cannot have this article on Wikipedia. The article is copied and pasted without attribution from Bharatpedia, a user-generated Wiki. This is not acceptable as we can only write articles about topics based in WP:RS, otherwise we leave ourselves open to hoaxes and WP:OR. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE search returns no significant coverage, though is complicated by the fact that "street fury" returns so many false positives, even when restricting searches to newspapers from the relevant timeframe and part of the world. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Probable hoax. Sent to Draft:Devamala (Shunga dynasty) as the article is unsourced and this was contested by the creator who copied and pasted it back to mainspace with no improvements whatsoever. The article has been copied over entirely from Bharatpedia, an unreliable source that anyone can edit. I note that the IP that has edited the Bharatpedia article is the same one that has added content about Devamala to Agnimitra and tried to add the same unsourced info to Pushyamitra Shunga. See also Simple English AfD where multiple editors in good standing have attempted to find sources to no avail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; well sourced and expanded now. ( non-admin closure) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This is interesting, buuut ... absolutely not well or widely documented and/or discussed. Essentially this is material from the introduction of the re-issue of one of the novels; otherwise coverage of both author(s) and books seems lacking. If someone can come up with a couple reviews or some non-primary biographical coverage, please do. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Libertarian Party of Texas. Randykitty ( talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG. Note that being national chair of a minor party does
not confer presumed notability. The only available sources seem to be
run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, trivial mentions, and
WP:PRIMARY/non-
RS. My
WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines found no
WP:RS-based significant coverage of her. As an
alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to
2021 Libertarian National Committee chair special election
Libertarian Party of Texas#Officeholders.
Sal2100 (
talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
*Comment: Note that I have changed the proposed redirect page based on discussion below.
Sal2100 (
talk)
19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. A loose necktie ( talk) 16:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Could not find WP:SIGCOV for this football player/YouTuber. The article has remained unsourced since it's creation over 10 years ago. Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. So there is enough here to keep. Frank Anchor 03:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No sources at all, nor could I find any. This is also unfortunately the case on the corresponding article from hiwiki. Silikonz 💬 14:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no references to Rachnadevi but she is the wife of Shrigupta.Silikonz 💬 14:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 13:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about an entrepreneur, not
properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs. As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they and their companies exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is not referenced to any significant
reliable source coverage about him, instead citing a mixture of
primary source press releases from his own companies, blogs, directory entries, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and purely tangential verification of stray facts in sources that completely fail to name Rudy Rupak in conjunction with them at all, none of which are notability-building sources.
There's also a likely
conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a virtual
WP:SPA whose editing interests revolve almost exclusively around Rudy Rupak -- even the stuff in their edit history that doesn't seem obviously connected, such as
Sainte-Adèle and
Les Misérables, still hinged on finding ways to shoehorn Rudy Rupak into them.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NTENNIS: She has only won one title that has a prize money higher than $15,000, and she did not reach a W60 final. Timothytyy ( talk) 09:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The level of the tournament doesn't matter for GNG, what matters is that the coverage of the player is significant and that the source is a reliable one. Iffy★ Chat -- 14:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
13:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Mostly WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader ( talk) 12:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, has only had minor roles in mostly non-notable productions. Can't see how he passes WP:NACTOR. Copied over from the repeatedly-declined Draft:Adli Shinichi, with the only difference being the removal of the WP:UPE tag. Only bit of coverage in WP:RS I can find is baskl.com.my but this is a trivial mention in a cast list. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Can't find any in-depth coverage on this person. Current sourcing does not have a single in-depth reference from an independent, secondary, reliable source. In fact, half the sources do not even mention him. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Sherdog and tapology do not consider? these are his personal pages. Also, since he is posted as a coach, I think it's okay to list his fighters and link to their achievements under his leadership. Gor is the founder of the martial arts academy, I'm adding a link to the academy's website in the article. Reached such a coaching level that the fighter of his club is signed to ufc. The article in the Armenian Wikipedia is posted and not appealed, Russian, German and French versions are in the process of being developed. TT me 12:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 12:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable school system. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. BookishReader ( talk) 11:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines as is and I found zero additional coverage. Previous AfD claims 1. Notability per WP:BAND #5 (at least one album was released by Tragic Hero Records so it might qualify there, but that alone wouldn't clear it for me) and 2. Coverage potentially existing in "outlets like Alternative Press and Absolute Punk" which was not linked and said to be "difficult to surface through casual Googling". Worth considering, but that comment is over two years old and nobody's tracked down said coverage yet so its existence is still only an assumption. QuietHere ( talk) 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
08:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
11:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Estrella–Pantaleon Bridge. (non-admin closure) SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 11:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be notable by sources. The two sources presented here fail spectacularly. One (now dead; archived copy) talks about the old residence of a former mayor whose surname is carried by this road, but there is no single mention of the street in the source. Another, from GMA News, talks about the opening of the Estrella–Pantaleon Bridge, but no mention of the street itself even if it connects to the bridge. In effect both sources tried to infer through name but lean towards WP:OR.
Unless more reliable sources that do not trivially mention the street are presented, this street fails in notability dramatically. Failure to become eligible for WP:GEOROAD! JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. I did a WP:BEFORE, but there is nothing in newspaper/magazines about this obscure school. BookishReader ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 10:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 16:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of notability for this list of results for a minor competition with unremarkable results. For example, searching for the winner of the 10.000m, Lahcen Essoussi gives a tiny handful of hits, the best being a non-independent source of the Monegasque Athletics Federation confirming his medals [52] but nothing further about him [53]. If even the winner of an event (plus another medal) is so completely lacking in coverage, then it seems unlikely that this received much coverage beyond routine results reports. Fram ( talk) 08:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
WJ94 (
talk)
10:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was Keep per Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Koopinator ( talk) 13:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This article relies strongly on primary sources, without any secondary sources discussing this in sufficient detail to establish notability. The only secondary source currently in this article, Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography, merely gives a
WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Due to this, along with its very meagre size (half of which is just explaining the context), I propose that it be deleted or merged into
Archimedes#Biography.
Koopinator (
talk)
09:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, sources don't appear to be neutral. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
* Delete: It's a
WP:TOOSOON and creator seems to be connected to the subject. ---
👑Misterrrrr👑 (
talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC) -
WP:SOCKSTRIKE -
Beccaynr (
talk)
18:51, 16 February 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! 08:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Sources appear to be non-independent or paid interviews/articles. echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The article was previously deleted in 2017 as not notable. Soon after, it was re-created but with different content. It's not only about notability concerns. WP:BLP also applies, and the whole content about the subject may more likely fail that policy. Recently, I asked others about contentious content. One was more concerned about the subject's notability more than what's written about him, including supposed coatracking
Before asking around, I created a draft that was supposed to replace the content. However, as I was developing the draft, I couldn't find any reliable source on newer updates, including current marital status. The latest I can find is 2006 or 2007. I haven't found a reliable source verifying a supposed divorce, so I decided to have the draft deleted. Furthermore, post-Survivor info about him seems more negative and disturbing.
As he appeared in only Survivor: Thailand, the article should be redirected to either that season article or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Alternatively, if the article lacks any substantial value, then it should be re-deleted. George Ho ( talk) 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be the name of the physical feature just to the south, transferred to a house and outbuildings via a state highway map. I find no evidence for a town per se; GHits are for the other location, the actual mesa, or a dude ranch in Sedona. Mangoe ( talk) 04:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable individual; sourcing used is paid PR pieces (Forbes) or a PR piece self-published by the company mentioned in the PR piece. Sources turn up a gangster with a similar name, nothing for this individual. Appears promotional. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Notoriety is based on the existence of adequate sources, not on the status of the sources
The reference section doesn't really matter, however there are others that are included in the technology and economics section
That the other Sachin is better positioned in English has no influence on the notoriety of this Sachin
WB:BIO for example specifically states: avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g. Google results).
The rules state that if an article can be fixed through normal editing then it is not a candidate for Afd, the main problem was the references however it has been shown that the person has reliable and independent sources so the problem was editing, being fixed then it is no longer a candidate for deleting search
WP:BEFORE consequently the article should be maintained
Sawelito (
talk) 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Striking - this is a sock of the article's author, who has already cast a !vote here.
Girth Summit
(blether)
10:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
A topo map label in the hills which disappears and then turns into a swamp labelled "Rosebud Cienega". No sign of habitation past or present, and nothing but junk GHits. Mangoe ( talk) 04:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "delete" !votes, especially the one by BusterD, have the stronger arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Other than the Propublica piece, there is no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 02:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist (although since no one has commented after the first 2 relists, I might be hoping in vain for additional participation.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing/award is insufficient Star Mississippi 17:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
BLP article for a government official and author. Sources do not meet SIGCOV for GNG or any other SNG. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This is a difficult AFD to close as I see blocked accounts arguing both for Delete and Keep and long-time editors basing their own decisions on the opinions of sockpuppets. This article can't be deleted via CSD G5 as there are many other editors who have contributed to this article. I think this discussion is too tainted by sockpuppetry and relisting will not help.
I recommend launching a follow-up AFD that, hopefully, will be sockpuppet-free. No penalty for editors copying their comments here to a second AFD or for starting a new AFD as soon as this one is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
fails WP:BIO, no Notability, all the refs are Trivial mentions and talk about the magazine which he works in not about him, many references are unreliable an unknown websites, ref no. 7 are YouTube link and refs (12 - 13) are not independent (guest articles written by the person), The article is clearly WP:MASK with a lot of puffing phrases and the article's creator manipulate with sources because he knows that most of the users do not know the Arabic language. Adelk220 ( talk) 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I'm still not seeing a consensus here among editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL pieces for such a TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help if those editors wanting to Keep this article provided a link to article with SIGCOV rather than just saying they exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Potential a nonnotable actress. Barely any third-party sources covering her and she didn't have main roles in many television programs/movies. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Not independently sourced, and WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Appears to have been a weekly ranking of NFL teams that is now shut down (based on no rankings for the 2022 season). It's existed as a 2 sentence article with a single reference since creation in 2012. Doesn't appear to pass GNG or any other notability requirements that I'm aware of after a WP:BEFORE search. Hey man im josh ( talk) 02:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
As a microstub that duplicates a database violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 due to the lack of sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search found no suitable sources.
Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and WP:NOTDATABASE BilledMammal ( talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe that a decent biographical article can be produced based off of these sources, and when I have time will try to expand it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. I don't have access to all of those, but of those I do most appear trivial and none contain WP:SIGCOV; not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, and a violation of WP:NSPORT which forbids us from having articles on sportspeople unless we can find at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus among the options mentioned (Delete, Draftify, Merge, Redirect and one lone Keep) but a No consensus close is not acceptable as the one consensus that comes through is that this article should be removed from main space. So, I'm relisting to see if one of the four options gets a lion's share of the opinions from those editors who are participating in this discussion. Otherwise, I would be closing this as a Super Vote which is inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
PR Article: Deleted in her home Wikipedia: Reason: Far below notable. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten
She is an unknown model and low level local "politician". She is one of 54 community people in a small district. Not eaven a salery. There is no level under this level in politics. Its an "office" far below the level of a small mayor.
Dosent hit WP:POLITICIAN also not WP:ENT. She is kind of the german version of Brittany Pettibone - with less fans. 200 subscribers on you tube. https://www.youtube.com/@marie-theresekaiser1446 MumQuin ( talk) 06:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep. She fails WP:NPOL because she is only a Landkreis-level elected official, i.e. local. However, for better or worse, she has attracted enough significant coverage in the German national press as cited in the article (see the article in Der Spiegel [ [94], another in Die Tageszeitung [95], an article in Tag24 [96], and so on.) Fiachra10003 ( talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, full of dubious sources, including forum posts among others. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It's unclear what purpose this DBA serves. The first suggestion of Kao (bull) could possibly be misspelled as "Cow" (and perhaps this could be redirected to it), but no one would ever search for the second in such a manner. I recomend deletion to avoid all ambiguity. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 00:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable sports journalist, the only source available in the article is clearly unreliable, and the only sources I could find from a search were either also unreliable or primary sources. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)